Excel - Set aside WON & CASE WON - Excel defeated AGAIN!

Jenni_D

Thread is too long to remember ... if this was an unauthorised vehicle PCN then you don't really want to be entering the car park again.

But yes, similar conditions and no flash. (If you're taking a video then your only additional illumination will be the headlights anyway).

milkybk

Jenni_D said:

Thread is too long to remember ... if this was an unauthorised vehicle PCN then you don't really want to be entering the car park again.

But yes, similar conditions and no flash. (If you're taking a video then your only additional illumination will be the headlights anyway).

Haha yes, unfortunately these things drag on clearly! Still we're 50% of the way there, set aside won and CCJ gone, now just the PCN itself. Then we can finally end the thread.

milkybk

Morning all

I’ve just been on the phone to my old insurance companies for documents etc. To my surprise, they took my parents and family off of the named drivers (used to put them on to bring the policy cost down like everyone did haha) during the year of the alleged PCN.

Therefore I’m technically the only named driver on the car. However, as stated to the Judge in my set aside hearing, any of my friends, house mates or family had permission to use the vehicle, if their own insurance covered it (which is common).

Felt like it was worth mentioning, in case wording of my defence and or witness statement needs tweaking. For example, focus on length of time between PCN and hearing, poor signing, poor lighting, Claimant never identifying driver etc.

Obviously a Judge could dismiss the “other driver” argument without insurance documents as a minimum and therefore I should perhaps focus more on Excel’s failings etc. As other cases have on the past.

What’s your thoughts?

Also, where can I access previous court transcripts? The successful defendant in this thread - link - referenced multiple cases/paragraphs. I assume to do this I would need to affix said court transcripts to my pack as evidence or is simply referencing them enough? The defendant is this case referenced the following:

• Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport 31/10/2016 - Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.
• Excel v M R Cutts 1SE02795 at Stockport County Court in 2011
  
• Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton
  
• VCS v Quayle C1DP0H0J. Keeper not liable for driver’s actions if POFA is not complied with (VCS v Quayle ).
  

With Mr Cutts being the defendant in one of the above cases, I assume page 25 refers to his defence, which must be publicly available for our Defendant on this website to have referenced it. I have found this - should I include it - link

I found this website - link - but is their an official court/government source?

Also, in the successful defence case from this forum I linked above it would appear Excel have adjusted some of their wording on their NTK's, as our poster stated this:

10. To comply with POFA Schedule 4, the following mandatory conditions have to be met in the Notice To Keeper (NTK):

POFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(f) states:

‘(2) The notice must— (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’

"The first underlined part of Paragraph 9(2)(f) is incorrectly written in the NTK received. Where the ‘Issue Date’ is defined in the NTK received from the Claimant it states ‘from the date posted’, rather than from the date ‘issued’."

However on my NTK it states this (circled in blue):

Therefore, unfortunately, I do not think I can rely on this. This is the first and only NTK I received from Excel. It is also the only one they produced in the SAR and at the set aside hearing. This is the "inflated" one to £100. According to them the original one should have been for £60. I don't know if the wording would have been different on that one.

This means I cannot rely on all of POFA paragraph 9f. However I can still rely on it for the seconds part, circled in red as:

The NTK states:

‘if , after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and current address for service of the driver, we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge.’

And yet POFA states:

The above is contrary to POFA Schedule Paragraph 9 by simply assuming the keeper was the driver after a period of time i.e. in the rest of this case. Paragraph 9(2)(f) does not state that the keeper can be assumed to be the driver. Once again, the Claimant did not issue NTKs in accordance to POFA Schedule 4. These are non-POFA NTKs and so the keeper cannot be held liable.

However maybe only the above can be applied as defence/evidence if they have failed to comply with all sections of this section of POFA? Looking for advice please?

NTK redacted below:

HOWEVER - in small text next to issue date you will notice in brackets it says (posted), so maybe I actually can use the entire POFA defence, which would be great. I have put a red box around it. Would be really interested in feedback on this, as I haven't been able to get in touch with the OP from the other case unfortunately. 



EDIT: Just done some further digging and managed to find the OP's NTK. His reads the same as mine in the fine text but with the same (posted) thing next to issue date, so I think I can still use it. His NTK looks identical to mine. Advice please?

Other successful defendants NTK below:

Link to image if you need to enlarge it

milkybk

Whilst I let people digest the above post, I know it's a lot haha - I thought I would update. Received official letter from Court this missing dismissing CCJ etc. They've also set a date for my defence etc to be filed by 4pm, 13th October. However it doesn't state a trial date yet unfortunately.

It also states "Each party must deliver to other parties and the court office copies of all documents etc etc within 14 days of the trial hearing". Seems slightly odd, as if the trial wasn't until e.g. December, the Claimant would have all my documents for 2 months to go through etc and work to thwart, whilst I wouldn't necessarily have theirs until much later. Maybe this is standard practice though.

I have emailed Excel offering them the chance to mediate outside of Court, just to show good faith. I have no doubt they'll ignore me and I don't really care haha I know I can win. They've been ignoring my emails since the trial, I assume whilst awaiting the courts letter, so we'll see if they engage next week.

The witness statement is now done other than evidence, which I will collect ASAP at night, as previously discussed.

Do I need a "skeleton argument" too? In the successful defence thread linked in posts above the Defendant (from this forum) submitted a defence, a statement, evidence and a skeleton argument. Just wondering if it's required and how it differs in detail from all other documents that will have been submitted?

Finally do all POFA arguments apply to my case as a defence? I only ask as whilst purusing other forums for information I found this - link - Where the Judge said "Excel Parking v Mr Ian Lamoureux does not apply as this is a case where the claimant is relying on POFA 2012 and my case pre dates POFA2012". I'm not a legal expert, my case was in 2017, so don't know if POFA has been changed etc and therefore this older cases cannot be relied on. However, oddly, this is one of the cases our member here successfully relied on in his defence. 

Redx

POFA has never been changed

Excel ( and sister company VCS ) have never complied with POFA afaik , I don't believe that they do now either !!

Most court cases dont have transcripts , because they need paying for , so rarely get published in parking cases

The parking prankster website is the only source I know of for actual transcripts

I cant remember if Lamilad did a transcript , but check his threads and posts under his username

The Lamilad case came a few years ago , so a few years after POFA 2012 , so his case doesn't pre date POFA , neither does yours !a Defence is ALWAYS lodged months before the WS bundle , the WS bundle is usually a few weeks before a hearing , I see nothing unusual there , perhaps you are overthinking it ?

Nobody needs a skeleton argument , but everyone should have a crib sheet to hand

There are no trials , only hearings , it's a Civil dispute !

Few people on here have legal training and you can count experts on the fingers of one hand , so generally you receive opinions from well informed and good intentioned lay persons

Coupon-mad

That's good.

With those directions I would supply only the defence by 13th October.  That's pretty clear.  Normally people don't get such clear directions after a set aside and just get a hearing foisted on them and the WS and evidence are never asked for, which is unfair and it's why we tell people to provide a defence, WS and evidence together.

You don't need a skelly.

But you can do the WS and evidence separately which is far better and the normal process, had there been no CCJ.  This court has fairly put you back at square one, which is great!

Remind us, what was said about costs by the first Judge and does this Order correctly state what you understood?

milkybk

Redx said:

POFA has never been changed

Excel ( and sister company VCS ) have never complied with POFA afaik , I don't believe that they do now either !!

Most court cases dont have transcripts , because they need paying for , so rarely get published in parking cases

The parking prankster website is the only source I know of for actual transcripts

I cant remember if Lamilad did a transcript , but check his threads and posts under his username

The Lamilad case came a few years ago , so a few years after POFA 2012 , so his case doesn't pre date POFA , neither does yours !a Defence is ALWAYS lodged months before the WS bundle , the WS bundle is usually a few weeks before a hearing , I see nothing unusual there , perhaps you are overthinking it ?

Nobody needs a skeleton argument , but everyone should have a crib sheet to hand

There are no trials , only hearings , it's a Civil dispute !

Few people on here have legal training and you can count experts on the fingers of one hand , so generally you receive opinions from well informed and good intentioned lay persons

Haha yes, sorry about the terminology error. Although one day it should be a criminal case against all these companies, as they're nothing more than daylight robbers!

I have managed to find transcripts after scraping the internet for most of the cases I will rely on in my Witness Statement, so all good. 

For your reference here is a link to the Lamilad case - link - In case we want to tweak anything in my future posts about defence statements.


Coupon-mad said:

That's good.

With those directions I would supply only the defence by 13th October.  That's pretty clear.  Normally people don't get such clear directions after a set aside and just get a hearing foisted on them and the WS and evidence are never asked for, which is unfair and it's why we tell people to provide a defence, WS and evidence together.

You don't need a skelly.

But you can do the WS and evidence separately which is far better and the normal process, had there been no CCJ.  This court has fairly put you back at square one, which is great!

Remind us, what was said about costs by the first Judge and does this Order correctly state what you understood?

Here is the letter, redacted of course:



I have clarified with the clerks and they have spoken to the Judge (or are speaking to her) about the amendments I require, which will be sent out as an adjustment to all parties (with regards to specifically the £255 owed regardless of outcome of next hearing)  


General Update:

So I think I am in a good place. My defence is done and so is my witness statement along with evidence. However I want to solely focus on the defence right now. I know it's been posted a few times but I want it to be perfect, so will post the "final draft" I currently have in the next posts. Please can you all help ensure no errors have been made and nothing is missing? I would obviously like to send it in promptly, as I have with all documents. But we do have some time, so should ensure it is bang on.

milkybk

So defence - split into two posts due to length. Please critique and comment as always. Thank you - I know I say this every time but the thanks is deserved. If I have forgotten to change anything previously mentioned I apologise and please mention it again, obviously dealing with a lot of different documents at the same time!

Defence:

1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the claim is, “in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on XXXXX at Broomhill Roof Top Pay & Display Car Park”. It is not stated whether the Claimant is claiming against the driver or the registered keeper or what the contravention is. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The alleged contravention took place at night, over 55 months ago. Upon investigation, none of the signs containing relevant parking terms, nor the Pay and Display Machines in the car park were adequately illuminated or in a position to be seen by the driver. The terms are displayed in a font which is too small and too high up to be read from a passing vehicle and are in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Repeater signs are high up and poorly illuminated. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. Furthermore, it is also denied that the signage is adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers (POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii)) and so keeper liability cannot be claimed.

6. POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Paragraph 9(2)(c) states that the Notice To Keeper (NTK) must, “describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose”. The NTK received by the owner states the contravention reason as, “Parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site the maximum period allowed at this site is minutes”. Note that a maximum allowed time has been implied but then not been stated. Therefore, the circumstances requiring payment have not been described. Since the NTK is not POFA 2012 compliant, keeper liability cannot be claimed.

7. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper “parking without payment” as specified in the notice to keeper. The Defendant asked for a partially redacted copy of the pay and display machine records for the time of the alleged contravention in a Subject Access Request in the pre-action stage however the Claimant has ignored this request.

8.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago, therefore the Defendant is unable to confirm or deny who was driving and the claimant is put to strict proof. Furthermore, upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver, was able to confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

9.   The Defendant is unable to admit or deny that he was the driver and therefore requires the claimant to prove so. Furthermore upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person was able to identify seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

10.   The Claimant repeatedly refused to provide the Defendant with photographs etc when requested during the original appeal in 2017, therefore the Defendant cannot be sure of the full facts. When the Defendant discovered they had a surprise CCJ filed against themselves, they sent the Claimant's Data Protection Officer an official Subject Access Request on 04/072021. The Claimant also ignored a follow up email sent on 07/07/2021 from the Defendant, chasing the SAR. By law, the Claimant should have responded without delay and within one month of receipt of the request. 

11.  As the registered keeper, the first the Defendant heard about this alleged parking charge was via post when they received the aforementioned NTK. The only photos provided at the time on the alleged PCN were two blurry ones, where the car's registration plate could barely be made out. The claimant has demonstrated no evidence of non-payment of a parking ticket, nor failure to display, nor any breach of contract. In the Defendant’s appeal in 2017, and subsequent Subject Access request in 2021, the Claimant was asked to provide a PDT machine record from the day of the alleged parking charge, of all payments made. They did not supply this.

12.   On 16/09/2021 the Defendant received a SAR file from the Claimant, over 2 months after the SAR was requested. The Claimant stated they had never received the SAR from the Defendant. However the Defendant can provide date and time stamped emails proving that the request was sent. It contained no new information that pertains to the Defendant's defence.  

13.   This was a simple request and therefore there are no mitigating circumstances to allow for an extension, should one have been required. Therefore by law, the Claimant should have responded without delay and within one month of receipt of the request. Therefore the Claimant refused the Defendant's legal right of access, as they did in 2017 during the Defendant's original appeal.

14.   The photos the Claimant has provided in their witness statement are of signage in daylight on completely different dates, potentially over 4 years since the alleged offence.  As can be seen on the PCN car photos, it was extremely dark when the alleged event took place. Therefore these signs will not have been as clear or as easy to spot, if they were even present in 2017.

15.   In the overdue SAR received 16/09/2021, there are two photos of the car’s registration plate, which can clearly be made out, unlike those on the original NTK in 2017. These clearer images were not provided at the time of the 2017 appeal, neither was any of the requested information. As has already been mentioned, the Defendant admits they were the registered keeper of the vehicle in these new photos. However, as mentioned in Point 2 of this defence, the Defendant is therefore still unable to confirm or deny who was driving and the claimant is put to strict proof.

16.   The aerial view they Claimant has created shows just one PDT machine (no proof it was working) and a couple of 'entrance signs' and a single ANPR sign but zero 'information signs', none whatsoever. Therefore this cannot be considered evidence of an agreed contract by the driver.

17.   The Defendant has been hounded and harassed by a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters. It should also be pointed out that the Defendant cannot be held liable, due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4

18.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

19.   It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this money claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

20.   Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

21.   The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

22.   Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

23.   Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

24.   Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

25.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  

26.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

27.   The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

28.   Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

            (i)   Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

           (ii)   Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

Both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and:

           (ii)    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

Where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

milkybk

29. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Debt Collection Costs of £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant since no debt has been collected. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

30. Furthermore, POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

31. The Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is seeking recovery of interest. The date from which this is claimed, the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation and the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date are not specified. As such, the claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

32.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

33.   In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

 

 In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

34.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

       (b) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to consider his Schedule of Costs.

       (c) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late      Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

35. The defendant also notes, in a recent case in 2019, against the same Claimant in the same car park, a Judge ruled that the signage was inadequate and poorly lit and did not form a binding contract. The Judge dismissed all of Excel’s claims against the Defendant. The Claimant has since made no improvements or changes to aforementioned signage or lighting, as my evidence will show.

36.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth

milkybk

@Coupon-mad @Redx @henrik777 @Jenni_D @KeithP @D_P_Dance @Johnersh - and anyone else haha!

Sorry to tag all, I imagine you're all busy and have obviously only just finished the weekend. But I really want to get this defence finished so I can post my Witness Statement for you all. I'd like to get the defence sent off ASAP, regardless of having some time to file it. I've been prompt throughout the whole case so far.

Mainly because once you guys approve the defence I would like to post my Witness Statement. In case you suggest moving some stuff from one document to the other etc.