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

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

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

Morning. Thanks, I will look into that. The original claim from from 11/08/2020 was signed by E Shoreman-Lawson (Claimant's legal rep) and the WS is signed by Moammed Wali (paralegal). So they are different. I am going to go and scan all their submitted documents at work today so I have an electronic backup. Should I upload them here?

In terms of evidence quoted in full:

1. EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED -v- MR IAN LAMOUREUX  (5 pages)
2. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED -v- SARAH QUAYLE (5 pages)
3. Pages 25-29 from "Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride" - about Excel's signs (5 pages)
4. Judgement of Parking Eye -v- Mr CARIGIUS (6 pages)
5. The entire of the "Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride" appended later on (56 pages) - This will likely be causing all the problems. 

Number 5 above is appended as evidence for this section of my WS:

16.4 It is also not clear which of the ‘below’ text are terms and which are irrelevant to the contract, a point made in Mr Cutts’ article (Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride) on page 25. [EXHIBIT Q]

It is argued that all remaining signage in the car park is not visible to drivers and so not ‘adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers’ and not POFA 2012 compliant.

As a result of these further POFA 2012 violations, keeper liability cannot be claimed.

This is where I have made a mistake, as 16.4 clearly states that it refers to page 25 only in Mr Cutt's article. Therefore I will need to strip it down for EXHIBIT Q.

Below is the 5 page extract mentioned in point 3:

Coupon-mad

Get rid of 2,4 and 5.

If you are using Excel v Lamoureux (county court level) why not Excel v Smith (appeal level) if you are taking the point that you were not driving and this was non-POFA?

Excel v Smith is persuasive, being on appeal.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Get rid of 2,4 and 5.

If you are using Excel v Lamoureux (county court level) why not Excel v Smith (appeal level) if you are taking the point that you were nit driving and this was no - POFA?

Excel v Smith is persuasive, being on appeal.

May I ask why I should remove them (I'm happy to if no longer pertinent to my case)? When I originally drafted my WS I was told to refer to other threads, those threads included points 2, 4 and 5.

With regards to Excel v Smith, I wasn't aware of it. That's why I'm posting on here, as you're all far more knowledge and up to date haha! Is this what you're referring to this section (or use the entire thing, I have a pdf of the 6 pages):

I will be applying for costs due to the unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, for pursuing a registered keeper and pretending that the POFA 2012 applies when they know it doesn't. The case is not merely hopeless, it is vexatious and they 6 know from VCS v Idle, VCS v Quayle and Excel v Smith that where the POFA Schedule 4 does not apply, a parking firm CANNOT pursue a registered keeper, particularly one who they know from an early appeal was not driving, and has zero liability in law.

For reference, I have now completed the WS - including an index, WS, Exhibits and the video links etc as suggested and finally my schedule of costs. It now totals 66 pages, don't know if that makes a difference in terms of removing things.

Sounds like a need to make a couple edits too from what you're saying @Coupon-mad but after that I'd like to upload a redacted version to dropbox for you all to review . This might help us narrow down exactly what is and isn't relevant I've used?

I'd like to get this sent off to the Claimant and the Court first thing Monday morning.

Thanks for your continued support.

Coupon-mad

2. Quayle = no different than Lamoureux so it adds nothing useful and is not persuasive like Excel v Smith.  And you need to make room for Excel v Wilkinson - see below.

4.  Cargius = very old!  Pre-Beavis case.  Judge won't be interested in a pre-Beavis county court decision.

5.  The whole article by Martin Cutts.  Too long and just someone's opinion. No more than old hearsay.   Judge won't read it.

I think you searched the forum for Lamoureux and didn't change the filter to 'newest', because it looks like you read really old results.

If you search the forum for Lamoureux Smith and change to 'newest' you'll get this reply, but also several 2022 WS examples where people used Excel v Smith well.

Also where is Excel v Wilkinson?  Standard in 2022 witness statements and in fact we advise people to use the example bundle by @aphex007 as your base, which shows you what a good WS bundle looks like and it includes Excel v Wilkinson..

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

2. Quayle = no different than Lamoureux so it adds nothing useful and is not persuasive like Excel v Smith.  And you need to make room for Excel v Wilkinson - see below.

4.  Cargius = very old!  Pre-Beavis case.  Judge won't be interested in a pre-Beavis county court decision.

5.  The whole article by Martin Cutts.  Too long and just someone's opinion. No more than old hearsay.   Judge won't read it.

I think you searched the forum for Lamoureux and didn't change the filter to 'newest', because it looks like you read really old results.

If you search the forum for Lamoureux Smith and change to 'newest' you'll get this reply, but also several 2022 WS examples where people used Excel v Smith well.

Also where is Excel v Wilkinson?  Standard in 2022 witness statements and in fact we advise people to use the example bundle by @aphex007 as your base, which shows you what a good WS bundle looks like and it includes Excel v Wilkinson..

Ok thanks, I will make the changes now.

Yes, I read through aphex007 thread and WS and used it when laying out my format etc , this one - link

Coupon-mad

But you didn't use Excel v Wilkinson.  It is standard.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

But you didn't use Excel v Wilkinson.  It is standard.

Case has dragged on for almost 2 years now, a lot has happened in my personal life etc (as with us all), so the reality is when I've returned to complete this I've made a few mistakes and missed a few bits, as you've mentioned. I will rectify them now.

milkybk

@Coupon-mad - I've made a load of changes and additions etc, looking pretty good. The only thing I'm struggling to find is the judgement/transcript of the latest Lamoureux case. It was here but link in post no longer works:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79785525/#Comment_79785525

I have the Excel vs Ian Lamoureux one from 2016 but that's it. Have you got a copy or a link to the newer one please? I tried doing to search and filtering to new, lots of mentions of the name but couldn't find the file anywhere. All the people coming up in recent searches used C3DP56Q5, which is the 2016 case.

milkybk

Witness Statement 1st Draft being posted

Short synopsis of events so far for anyone new reading:

• Surprise CCJ in 2021.
• I won the set aside hearing in Oct 2021, thanks to everyone on here helping.
• CCJ set aside, costs for set aside hearing reserved for after main claim hearing.
• Excel repaid the set aside £255 fee immediately anyway.
• Almost 1.5 years later Excel received a final warning letter from courts to file their N180 etc.
• Hearing date now set for middle of 2023 for Excel's original alleged parking charge claim.

They're claiming for a total of £235.00:

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

Their person who signed their claim form is different to the paralegal who has written the WS, who has also implied he likely won't be attending court - This has been added to the WS, as per @Coupon-mad suggestion.   

My redacted witness statement is uploaded to this dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/99g3jzjrnfa7ysf/13-03-2023 - Redacted - Defendant - Witness Statement.pdf?dl=0

The two video links are to YouTune (unlisted) and I have checked they worked through friends etc but if anyone has issues let me know. These will also be sent to the Claimant and Court on USB sticks,

It's been a long drawn out process, thanks to Excel. So there's a chance some of my WS is outdated, has duplicated info or just incorrect stuff in it (as I've done bits of it over the last couple years waiting to see if Excel would actually file). Please feel free to pull it apart, I welcome any suggestions to improve it, all advice given here has helped tremendously so far.

The Exhibits are only highlighted at the moment in case I need to move stuff around in later drafts, easier to see them that way.

I'm tagging a few people (apologies in advance) who have helped before and are experts, in case this is the wrong place to put the WS i.e. in the public domain. If there is a better/more private way for me to share it with you all please let me know ASAP and I will remove the dropbox link.

@Coupon-mad @Snakes_Belly @B789@Fruitcake @KeithP @Jenni_D @Le_Kirk @Redx @D_P_Dance @Johnersh

Apologies again for the tags, just don't want to mess this up as we head towards the final hurdles. Thank you all (anyone who has ever posted in here) for your continued support and help, that you do for free. I truly appreciate it and I'm forever grateful. I wouldn't have been able to get to this stage (winning the set aside etc) without you all. Thank you. 

Fruitcake

The link to the document works okay, as do the two videos. 

You have a mixture of defendant and "I" in the first few paragraphs. It doesn't really matter; it would just be a bit neater if it was all the same.

Para 19, it is not an offence. Call it an alleged event instead.
Para 19 also has Beavis incorrectly spelled several times.

Your images don't have date stamps. 

Overall it looks good to me. I think you will be unlucky if you lose.