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

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

What a waste of your time!

Yes, it's been very frustrating! I just want to be able to put the matter behind me but it drags on. Regardless, for whatever reason, the Courts have allowed them to file so incredibly late, so the case is going ahead. Do you think there's any grounds to request to have the case quashed immediately, given they missed the Judgement Order deadline date?

In terms of a defence, I was obviously requested in the above letter to submit one within 14 days, which I did. This is the one from this post:

Previously submitted defence:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79895697/#Comment_79895697

However, given the amount of time passed, I thought it may well be worth updating it, as I will be submitting a WS and evidence anyway and have plenty of time to get it perfect. What do you think? I could update it to the latest format you mentioned @Coupon-mad.

Coupon-mad

You can't change a defence without a fee.

Just do a really good WS bundle!  Not the one in the NEWBIES thread, that's an old one and we din't use Britannia v Crosby now. 

Good WS bundles are by @aphex007
or @SJRRJS

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

You can't change a defence without a fee.

Just do a really good WS bundle!  Not the one in the NEWBIES thread, that's an old one and we din't use Britannia v Crosby now. 

Good WS bundles are by @aphex007
or @SJRRJS

Ok sweet! Perfect, thanks for your help as always. Will continue working on WS this week. 

As mentioned previously, no chance of getting this thrown out for them failing to meet the original Court Order is there? Wasn't sure if contacting e.g. the ruling Judge's secretary and showing they failed to follow through would lead to the case being dismissed.

Either way, I'll beat them in court again. 

Coupon-mad

You can certainly send an email setting out their failure and ask if the claim is likely to be struck out as a result.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

You can certainly send an email setting out their failure and ask if the claim is likely to be struck out as a result.

Ok thanks, will do. Who should I contact (as in which court or someone directly maybe)?

I received Excel's Court pack today in the post. Their standard Defence and their WS, which doesn't have anything new in it from the set aside hearing (which I won but I know is different). They've included a copy of my defence that was originally submitted on time, so I can't change that. Just need to finish my WS etc and send off copies to them. I would like to do it ASAP, as they have now sent theirs. Should I mention in the WS etc that they failed to do things on time or not worth it?

In terms of their defence - All their photos of the car park are taken on a bright sunny morning, I was there in pitch black at night and some of the included sign pictures are just JPEG's (badly stretched and formatted). Which will all help in my WS. They have included the PDT log, which they refused to give me before the set aside hearing.

Shall I upload their defence and WS to here for people to scan through? I can redact my name etc. They're claiming for a total of £235.00:

• £160 amount claimed (original alleged charge was £60)
• £25 court fee
• £50 Legal costs

Their paralegal who has written the WS etc has already implied he won't be attending court.

Snakes_Belly

"Their paralegal who has written the WS etc has already implied he won't be attending court."

They never put their heads above the parapet themselves even though many of the hearings are now by video link.

Not_A_Hope

Is there anything in the PDT log that helps your case?

milkybk

Not_A_Hope said:

Is there anything in the PDT log that helps your case?

No unfortunately not but my WS is strong and my exhibits etc should be more than enough proof. Poor signage, improperly placed, improperly worded, fraudulent increase in charges etc etc etc. I will share WS when finished, going to finish it this weekend now I have theirs.

They lost a case in the same car park at the same time of day (night time) a couple years before mine. Judge threw it out almost instantly and awarded the defendant (a poster from here who stopped posting after, tried reaching out to him but no longer active) full costs. They haven't made any changes to the signage etc since the last case. 

milkybk

Hi all - So I've finished my WS or at least the 1st detailed draft. The WS itself is only 9 pages long and I think has most stuff in there, maybe a few tweaks here and there from you eagle eyes experts. However the supporting evidence pack is huge, when you include all the referenced cases etc it comes out to something silly like 100 pages. Is this normal or should I be stripping lots of bits out of old cases? 

When I've reviewed previous WS's they've used the entire document but it just seems huge! Judge only has an hour with us lol, need to ensure I have time to put forward a convincing argument rather than drown anyone in cases and PDF's etc. Unless potentially the Claimant and Judge read it beforehand? Not really sure, never had to go to court for anything (other than the set aside, which was simpler). Any advice would be appreciated! I'm checking out @aphex007 and @SJRRJS as @Coupon-mad mentioned now to see if I've gone wrong anywhere. I've been head down for a few hours working on it, so forgot to cross reference. 

Once I get a final steer I can upload a draft this weekend to show everyone.

Coupon-mad

Which cases are you appending in full?

Which paralegal signed the WS and which person signed the original claim?  Also a paralegal?

I am thinking you could cite Baxter v Doble & anor from the High Court this week, and state that a paralegal (not a solicitor from this 'bulk litigator debt' roboclaim firm) has knowingly carried out work, including drafting and filing a claim and drafting and signing a witness statement themselves, despite not being a party to the case.   Despite calling themselves a 'witness' the third party paralegal is also not bothering to attend the hearing to be cross-examined or to answer to the extent of their involvement in the litigation, yet they are clearly not a person who is entitled to carry out work that has amounted to the conduct of litigation for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/486.html