Adjourned Hearing - a Skeleton Argument Confined to 3 Issues of Law required

buckminster

for the last 18 months i have been fighting a claim from excel parking for a £1.70 parking ticket, which i paid for, however the pay by phone system wouldn't allow me to register my car registration details. i have gone through the appeal process, submitted defence and witness statements in line with those referenced on the newbie thread and provided by robertcox999, adjusting where necessary to suit the details of my situation. i had hoped that the case would be resolved during a telephone hearing in february, however the judge immediately noted the lengthy nature and multiple references to case law in my documents and those of the claimant, and decided that the hearing be adjourned and a different date be proposed with 2.5 hours set aside rather than the 90 minutes scheduled for the original hearing. the judge has also asked that:
"the defendant shall file with the court and serve on the claimant skeleton argument confined to 3 issues of law raised in defence. the defendant shall not have permission to rely on any additional matters of law" and that,
"the claimant shall file with the court and serve on the defendant a skeleton argument in response....that shall be no more than 4 sides of A4 paper...no county court authority case law shall be relied upon, and copies of authorities relied on shall be filed with the skeleton arguments" and,
"the court shall not on the next occasion confine legal argument to the contents of the skeleton arguments" and,
"costs reserved to the adjourned hearing"
i need to prepare my skeleton argument for issuing by the end of the week - so very conscious time is limited - and would be grateful for any help or advice in putting this together, including which 3 issues of law i should be making reference to for most effect. particularly concerned that the hearing time has been extended and that i will be questioned on subjects and process that i am unfamiliar with for 2.5hrs, putting me at a distinct disadvantage to the claimants solicitor, and that the costs have been reserved. thanks in advance.

nosferatu1001

Without seeing exactly what you filed, we cant know how to advise you; we would be guessing
Costs reserved is obvious - decision on who the costs of that first heraring should be paid by has been reserved until this hearing. Thats normal. 

You have had months to read the applicable laws, as this is your defence. You signed a statement of truth remember...

Fruitcake

We need to know what the scammers are claiming the driver did wrong, and what you put in your defence, so we can perhaps advise you on which ones we thing are the most important three.

Normally these would be, something like,
Not the landowner
No standing (no contract with or flowing from the landowner) to issue charges in their own name.
Inadequate signage, so no contract between the driver and a scammers.

If you have the scammer's WS, please show it to us. If it is excessively long, then post the first page with the (para)legal's name, and the last page with their signature and statement of truth, plus their evidence/exhibits, especially the alleged contract with the landowner.

Only redact YOUR personal data. If the scammers have redacted anything then please tell us.

I cannot stress how important my previous sentence is. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, what are the three areas of law that your WS covers?  I am guessing but is it primarily:

- signage and how the case differs from the Beavis case?

- landowner authority and how there is no legitimate interest?

- the added false costs and why they are not applicable (in which case this is a fab opportunity to append the transcript of Excel v Wilkinson and let HHJ Jackson (who you must tell your Judge, is now an HHJ and sits on some High Court cases).  She sums up every point very persuasively even though the case was heard shortly before she was promoted to a Specialist Circuit Judge:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

That one is better than the Southampton case because the Southampton area Judge reversed a strike out decision from that area and so DJ Grand's decision holds less water than this one.  Leeds and Bradford area continued to strike out cases on the back of it and a VCS employee told us they were trying to appeal one but until the result of all that is known, the above transcript is what I would want a Judge to read and to know the learned Judge is now promoted to High Court cases as a specialist Judge.

buckminster

thanks all for prompt responses. please find attached extract from my redacted witness statement. pgs 3 to 5, covering the bespoke elements to my case; the remaining sections within my witness statement are also applicable but have been incorporated from the template provided on your website (includes references to consumer rights act; skipton county court case; southampton county court case; parking eye vs beavis;  i will post the claimants first and and last pages of their witness statement shortly. thanks 

Fruitcake

buckminster said:

thanks all for prompt responses. please find attached extract from my redacted witness statement. pgs 3 to 5, covering the bespoke elements to my case; the remaining sections within my witness statement are also applicable but have been incorporated from the template provided on your website (includes references to consumer rights act; skipton county court case; southampton county court case; parking eye vs beavis;  i will post the claimants first and and last pages of their witness statement shortly. thanks 

Plus their evidence/exhibits, especially the alleged contract with the landowner.

buckminster

please find below scanned copy of the claimants witness statement introductory page, statement of truth and signature, and landowner contract - there are a further 16 pages of evidence which includes photos of signage from the car park, and notices that were sent containing details and photos of my car in the car park, and also an extract of my bank statement showing that i had paid - please let me know if i should post these (editing out all my personal details). 
  

Fruitcake

That's not a contract. It's a statement form a scamployee saying the scammers have a contract, but haven't actually produced it. The landowner hasn't even been named.

There is no proof that the unnamed landowner even knows about the contract, let alone agreed to it and signed it.

According to Section 43 of the Companies Act, a simple contract requires explicit or implied authority from both parties.
Section 44 of the same Act requires two authorised signatories from each party for a document to be validly executed.

Both sections of the act should be included in your WS. They very short, so I suggest you read them and understand what they mean.

KeithP

But @Fruitcake, in that 'Contract Witness Statement' Excel are claiming to be the leaseholder of Fairmeadows Car Park.
Surely that means, being the landholder, they do not have to have a contract with anyone. 

Of course they may not be telling the truth there, but...

Fruitcake

Point taken, but they have provided no proof that they are the leaseholder, they just say that they are.

They still need a contract (lease) with the unnamed landowner, so the defendant should aver that no such lease exists, and put the scammers to proof that the contrary is true.
I'm sure that the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect to see a copy of the said lease to prove that one exists, and that it is still in force.

If a lease existed, I would expect
the document to be shown
the name of the landowner to be shown
the signature of the landowner to be shown
the start and end date of the lease to be shown

Coupon-mad

I am not seeing three distinct legal arguments in that WS of yours, well nothing out of the ordinary anyway.

Can you show us the court Order wording (a photo of it)?