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

Johnersh

Looks as though the DJ thinks the defence is a scattergun, so wants D to commit to his 3 best points.

I don't think this makes it harder, it's easier to get on top of fewer key points than to keep abreast of 10 or more. 

That ain't the landowner contract, but some form of witness statement containing the incorrect statement of truth. It's unclear what it is evidence of. 

buckminster

thanks fruitcake - i haven't mentioned this in my WS which has been submitted, is it acceptable that i now add it to the skeleton argument that the judge has requested?

Fruitcake

I would. If you used the template defence, then landownership would have been questioned at that stage.

As well a the things I mentioned, I would expect the scammers to prove that the land had not changed ownership at the time of the alleged event.

I'm sure that ParkingLie produced the lease they had with the landowner in the Beavis court cases. Again, the man on the Clapham Omnibus would reasonably expect the scammers in your case to do the same, especially if the scammers have referred to the Beavis case at some point.

buckminster

hi couponmad, please find below the general form of judment or order received from the DDJ:

buckminster

i may be falsely optimistic but am hoping that the DDJ will view the key aspect of my case being that i paid for a parking ticket - which i believe the claimant accepts - but could not register my car because the pay by phone system was faulty (the system provided 2 registration numbers which didn't match my car and then no further option was provided, no link to a helpline was offered, there was no parking attendant on-site (which one of their signs makes reference to)). the claimant responded to this saying it is a third party system for which they are not responsible - but surely they must be! they must be paying for this pay by phone service. surely it can't be my responsibility as the consumer to claim against the third party phone service, particularly as this was for a £1.70 parking ticket. is there any case law or precedent i can use to emphasize this? 

Coupon-mad

OK so that legal argument is assisted by case law such as Jolley v Carmel - I wonder if @Johnersh can locate the transcript because I haven't got it.

It's a case about a consumer making best endeavours to comply with an obligation.  Sort of connected to that is frustration of contract, caused by the faulty ANPR & pay by phone system.  Both were interlinked in causing this parking charge. 

Were the VRMs that came up your other/older cars, or complete strangers; cars?  What I am wondering is if the system was linked to ANPR reads and in fact the rain had caused a misread so that, at the time that you stood there, the ANPR system had failed to capture your VRM, but had captured other people's cars and suggested those to you?  Or were they old cars of yours that you've paid for before, using that app?

buckminster

i believe they were the registrations of hire cars that i had previously used for work purposes. i checked the phone system after excel had issued their 'parking fine' and it had been updated to process the registration details before payment could be made - which would have helped avoid my situation - i'm uncertain if this update was because excel had recognised there was a problem with the system. 

buckminster

in my WS i made reference to "park with ease ltd vs mr d, newcastle county court B3GF344V" because the claimant did not suffer any loss of profit, but believe i subsequently read that this case had its weaknesses? is this correct? thanks

Coupon-mad

It doesn't help you because it's a county court case and there is no transcript.  You need actual case law.

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

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

There was a case recently dismissed because Excel/VCS had submitted something like the above. They may have a lease but that document is something that they have just cobbled up. 

I used Jolley v Carmel in my defence and the judge picked up on that case.