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

buckminster

@Johnersh @Snakes_Belly do you want me to post my redacted defence? happy to do so, but in terms of the key issues i think these are: 

1. issue mentioned above, in that i tried to register but was frustrated by the pay by phone system and shouldn't be required to pay twice;
2. that excel suffered no loss – my bank statement shows i paid; the claimants data shows there was one car in the car park that had been registered via pay by phone, but no registration recorded and they have a photo of my car in the car park; the car park was close to empty, so others weren’t obstructed fromparking; - but note that @coupon-mad has highlighted that “park with ease ltd vs mr d, newcastle” was a county court case - so perhaps this isn't best;

3. @Fruitcake and @Snakes_Belly have highlighted that the land ownership contract is instead a loose statement and that reference to section 43 and section 44 of companies act should be made, as well as jolley v carmel;

4.  the added false costs and why they are not applicable with reference to the transcript of @Coupon-mad;

buckminster

sorry, 
4. the added false costs and why they are not applicable as per the transcript of @Coupon-mad
do points 1, 3 and 4 seem like the most effective issues of law to respond on?

buckminster

sorry point 4 keeps getting deleted - point 4 being - the added false costs and why they are not applicable and reference to the transcript of Excel v Wilkinson

Umkomaas

buckminster said:

sorry point 4 keeps getting deleted - point 4 being - the added false costs and why they are not applicable and reference to the transcript of Excel v Wilkinson

But the Judge said he didn't want county court cases - of which Wilkinson is one -  so while highly apposite as Excel were the claimant in that case too, I just wonder whether its inclusion might be more irritant than supplicant?  See what others say. 

Snakes_Belly

The fact that you paid as evidenced by your bank statement which correlates with the records provided by the Claimant is a strong point. It shows that you have complied with the consideration element of the contract. Use the Jolley case to support this point. 

Regarding the fake add on did you ever receive any debt collection letters from DRP or Zenith (same company)?

Regarding the landowner contract. There was a recent case dismissed where Excel/VCS used a similar document in their WS. Why they don't show the actual lease (if there is one) could be because it is in the name of VCS and the signage is in the name of Excel. (These companies are separate legal entities).  


There has not been much mention of the signage.

I would leave no loss out. You have evidence that you have paid. The payments company is their responsibility whatever they say. They have appointed them to collect payments on their behalf. They just can't be a-sed to tie up the two transactions. 

These are my thoughts and I am not legally qualified but have been through the process. Johnersh is legally qualified. Coupon acts as a lay rep and is very knowledgeable.  

buckminster

Umkomaas said:

But the Judge said he didn't want county court cases - of which Wilkinson is one 

the judge only said "no county court case law to be relied upon" when clarifying what the claimants skeleton argument should be. for my skeleton argument he mentions "should be confined to 3 issues of law" does this mean i could use a county court case? (- apologies if i'm confusing matters)

Snakes_Belly

buckminster said:

Umkomaas said:

But the Judge said he didn't want county court cases - of which Wilkinson is one 

the judge only said "no county court case law to be relied upon" when clarifying what the claimants skeleton argument should be. for my skeleton argument he mentions "should be confined to 3 issues of law" does this mean i could use a county court case? (- apologies if i'm confusing matters)

The judge will not be relying on a decision made in the County Court. To turn that on it's head, use higher court cases in preference. 

nosferatu1001

County court level is too low to count. 

OP - dont incluide CRA2015 , as the judge is compelled to consider it even if you do not raise it. 

Snakes_Belly

It's possible that they may pull out on this hearing. Two and a half hours is quite expensive and they will have already incurred costs. It will be around £400.00 in reps fee's. Even if you lose you are likely to get the £60.00 knocked off. It's not viable and they will be the biggest losers even if they win.

They are likely to make an offer first which you could counter offer with a drop of hands which means you just both walk away.
      

buckminster

i'm hoping they pull out, but they did ask that costs be reserved for this hearing...