Telephone hearing in June.. help and advice welcome

Coupon-mad

only the particulars of the claim; which included generic graphics of parking signs. Are the graphics their documents?!?

No.  Interesting, you didn't tell us that bit, that the C has to send you stuff first. That's better.

You are not required to send in your WS ahead of the C but you would need transcripts of cases like Excel v Wilkinson (but not ParkingEye v Beavis as that's very well known - Supreme Court level - and easy for a Judge to refer to). 

For a WS example using Excel v Wilkinson, see the thread by @jrhysrecently, which shows the evidence and transcripts he used (don't forget your costs schedule too, if the hearing means you are missing work or having to take half a day's leave).

greenfern3655

Coupon-mad said:

only the particulars of the claim; which included generic graphics of parking signs. Are the graphics their documents?!?

No.  Interesting, you didn't tell us that bit, that the C has to send you stuff first. That's better.

You are not required to send in your WS ahead of the C but you would need transcripts of cases like Excel v Wilkinson (but not ParkingEye v Beavis as that's very well known - Supreme Court level - and easy for a Judge to refer to). 

For a WS example using Excel v Wilkinson, see the thread by @jrhysrecently, which shows the evidence and transcripts he used (don't forget your costs schedule too, if the hearing means you are missing work or having to take half a day's leave).

Yes sorry, I only saw that once I looked a little closer at the details of the notice. It's no less confusing but definitely seems more fair.

Thanks for the tips, they'll be helpful once I work out a bit more what's going on with these dates.

greenfern3655

KeithP said:

The 'documents you intend to rely on' include your Witness Statement.

I would think so as well, but then why have they given us two dates; one for documents and one for witness statements?

greenfern3655

So, it appears that I'm not the only one confused by the dates in the notice. The claimant didn't send through their documents on the 30th as instructed by the Court. Is it a good idea for me to apply to strike out the claim? I'm not really sure how to proceed as if I send my documents on the 7th, it would give the claimant a distinct advantage... 

Coupon-mad

You can't ''apply to strike out the claim''.

I would just do your bit by 7th and include the observation that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Order.

greenfern3655

@ Coupon-mad, thanks for your help and on a bank holiday Sunday, no less. I hope I'm not wasting anyone's time on a sunny day but I have a few further questions...

The notice from the court has in bold lettering at the top, the following:
Warning Notice
Please read all of the following Directions through carefully.
If one other Party has failed to comply with the attached directions it is open to the other party to inform the Court in writing and request action to be taken.

Should I send the observation of non compliance to the court separate to my document bundle and what actions could I request be taken? Also does the in writing mean it needs be sent by post?

Coupon-mad

Ah, yes, in that case, do it and send it by email and post.  Do it now then!

greenfern3655

Aye Captain! I'm on it!

greenfern3655

I need to submit my WS by Friday.. I've leaned heavily on the WS recommended to me by users on this site and reference Excel vs Wilkinson. Also, my partner has provided a witness statement as he was there at the same time in a separate car, so he basically reiterates what I'm saying ( didn't see the signs) It would be greatly appreciated if anyone be able to have a quick look at my sequence of events and signage section and provide feedback?

 3. I have visited the xxxxx exactly twice in my life. Once, for 26 minutes on the 22nd of March 2020 , in a group consisting of 2 cars, 2 adults and 4 children, to have a quick picnic and stretch our legs. I visited again on the 20th December, 2020 staying approximately 5 minutes, for the purpose of investigating the claim against me. The 20th of December was the first time I observed the signage which the claimant alleges to be the basis of the contract (Exhibit D). I also observed other signage at the site that day (Exhibit E). I found the conflicting messages on the signage present at the site, create a general lack of clarity as to which part of the land in question is free to park on. 

4. On the 22nd of March 2020, my partner; xxxx and I had been with our children celebrating mother’s day morning. Travelling back, it became evident that the kids needed a break so xxxx drove to what seemed a suitable place to stop, I followed in my car. As we entered the park, I was not on the lookout for parking signs as I was concerned with attending to my children’s needs. The signage is barely visible as you turn into the entrance to the park (Exhibit A) and would have been easily obscured by pedestrians and their vehicles. The park that day was busy with cars and full of people, I did not see any signs as we drove through the site to find free spaces at the far end. We parked by the third gravel patch on the left, beyond the tree as is just visible in Exhibit B and D, it is clear from the evidence in the photo that the only clear road markings are the two disabled bays at the near end. By themselves, those marked bays cannot be considered to be sufficient evidence of formal parking restrictions, nor of any limitations to the parking area. 

5. In fact, the Claimant provides no evidence that any signage claimed to be at the site on the material date was visible from any car entering, parking in or exiting the parking area. Any photographs purporting to show such signage on a different date cannot be considered sufficient to evidence their presence on the date in question. Any sign and site maps can not be considered sufficient to evidence the presence of signage on the date in question. Any close-up photographs of signage cannot be considered sufficient as evidence of their visibility from the entrance nor from any areas, like the one in which I parked, that were being occupied by people for a variety of recreational uses.

6. I did not see any signs during my entry to, stay at or exit from the parking area. As such I could only reasonably conclude that there were no parking restrictions in place and can only reasonable conclude that there were no such signs present on the material date. If there had been clear indications that I was parking in a ‘pay and stay’ bay, I would have willingly complied and paid the £1 fee for my stay.

greenfern3655

So no responses means it's either really bad and everyone's given up on me or it's really good and I needn't change a thing! Hoping it's the latter. Either way, I need to submit it later today...