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

milkybk

Excel emailed just now rejecting my offer but we knew they would. I haven't bothered replying back, not worth any more of my time. I can finally relax now until July, unless the date moves etc. Will keep everyone up to date. Half of me expects them to discontinue at some point tbh.

As always, thank you so much for the help you've given me over the last couple of years, it's been immeasurably helpful and an interesting learning experience tbh. One last hurdle now, beat Excel in Court (again).

Jenni_D

There's a reasonable chance that they'll discontinue - or at least try to. Have you included wording in your defence/WS to cover this, so that you can try to get costs?

Fruitcake

You could always send a separate costs schedule including a claim for unreasonable behaviour should they discontinue close to the hearing date.

milkybk

Jenni_D said:

There's a reasonable chance that they'll discontinue - or at least try to. Have you included wording in your defence/WS to cover this, so that you can try to get costs?

Yes I did.

Fruitcake said:

You could always send a separate costs schedule including a claim for unreasonable behaviour should they discontinue close to the hearing date.

Yes and the Set Aside Judge reserved costs for me for after the main claim hearing, so I have that order too.

Just received this from Excel's litigation team:


This was raised/covered and answered in the Set Aside hearing too, in my WS and defence. I can supply insurance documents but the reality is it's not just myself or named drivers who have access to my vehicles, it's anyone I deem can use them who has their own relevant insurance policy to cover them using other cars (I have done the same myself for friends cars in the past).

Fruitcake

milkybk said:

Jenni_D said:

There's a reasonable chance that they'll discontinue - or at least try to. Have you included wording in your defence/WS to cover this, so that you can try to get costs?

Yes I did.

Fruitcake said:

You could always send a separate costs schedule including a claim for unreasonable behaviour should they discontinue close to the hearing date.

Yes and the Set Aside Judge reserved costs for me for after the main claim hearing, so I have that order too.

Just received this from Excel's litigation team:


This was raised/covered and answered in the Set Aside hearing too, in my WS and defence. I can supply insurance documents but the reality is it's not just myself or named drivers who have access to my vehicles, it's anyone I deem can use them who has their own relevant insurance policy to cover them using other cars (I have done the same myself for friends cars in the past).

Then I suggest you remind them that this has already been covered. Since they have admitted that there is a question over driver identity then on the balance of probabilities you were not the driver, and it is up to them to prove that you were, not for you to prove you weren't. 

Since they have admitted that they don't know who was driving then I would suggest that it is unreasonable for them to continue when they know they have not met the courts' requirements of "beyond the balance of probabilities."

It won't hurt to include a copy of insurance documents with another named driver, but you would want the court to see it as well, so you could send it as a supplementary witness statement and advise the court you are doing so at the claimant's request in order to narrow the issues.

milkybk

Fruitcake said:

milkybk said:

Jenni_D said:

There's a reasonable chance that they'll discontinue - or at least try to. Have you included wording in your defence/WS to cover this, so that you can try to get costs?

Yes I did.

Fruitcake said:

You could always send a separate costs schedule including a claim for unreasonable behaviour should they discontinue close to the hearing date.

Yes and the Set Aside Judge reserved costs for me for after the main claim hearing, so I have that order too.

Just received this from Excel's litigation team:


This was raised/covered and answered in the Set Aside hearing too, in my WS and defence. I can supply insurance documents but the reality is it's not just myself or named drivers who have access to my vehicles, it's anyone I deem can use them who has their own relevant insurance policy to cover them using other cars (I have done the same myself for friends cars in the past).

Then I suggest you remind them that this has already been covered. Since they have admitted that there is a question over driver identity then on the balance of probabilities you were not the driver, and it is up to them to prove that you were, not for you to prove you weren't. 

Since they have admitted that they don't know who was driving then I would suggest that it is unreasonable for them to continue when they know they have not met the courts' requirements of "beyond the balance of probabilities."

It won't hurt to include a copy of insurance documents with another named driver, but you would want the court to see it as well, so you could send it as a supplementary witness statement and advise the court you are doing so at the claimant's request in order to narrow the issues.

Hey, thanks for replying. I thought the same thing.

I'll dig out my old insurance documents from 2017, I'm not even sure there were any other named drivers. At the set aside case the Claimant's representative brought it up. The Judge asked me, I said I didn't think there were any other named drivers on the policy at the time but that any friends or family with their own correct insurance were allowed to use my car at any time. The Judge was satisfied with my answer and told Excel to move along. They tried to argue but she stopped them.

Grizebeck

They have no business seeing or asking for that document

Fruitcake

It helps you if you have it and there is at least one named driver on it, but it doesn't hurt if you haven't because you have the judge's comments from the previous hearing, and Excel's admission that they don't know who was driving. You might still want the court to see that statement from dear Jake to back this up.

milkybk

Fruitcake said:

It helps you if you have it and there is at least one named driver on it, but it doesn't hurt if you haven't because you have the judge's comments from the previous hearing, and Excel's admission that they don't know who was driving. You might still want the court to see that statement from dear Jake to back this up.

I have checked and there were no other named drivers at the time, parents etc were always on previously but I removed them at that point as I had enough NCD to bring the price down sufficiently (love car insurance lol). I have replied to Excel's email (not offered any documentation) and will inform them that I will be showing it to the court as evidence of their admission of not knowing who was driving, how king of them. 

Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

milkybk said:

Excel emailed just now rejecting my offer but we knew they would. I haven't bothered replying back, not worth any more of my time. I can finally relax now until July, unless the date moves etc. Will keep everyone up to date. Half of me expects them to discontinue at some point tbh.

As always, thank you so much for the help you've given me over the last couple of years, it's been immeasurably helpful and an interesting learning experience tbh. One last hurdle now, beat Excel in Court (again).

Don't disappear from the forum till July though, or you will miss the vital (final) Public Consultation by the DLUHC about the level of parking charges and the ban on extortionate debt 'fees'