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

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

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'

I won't, don't worry! I'll be posting updates as Excel send me more silly emails etc and keeping up to date with other cases. Would be great if something positive came from the DLUHC that I could use in my case too! 

Coupon-mad

Hopefully.  I am doing my best!

milkybk

Their reply, I don't think they're very happy   

Part of my reply they're referring too:
"As I'm sure you're aware, it is not just myself or named drivers who have access to any of my vehicles. It's anyone I deem can use said vehicles, who have their own relevant insurance policy to cover them whilst using third party vehicles. You're fully aware this is this case, many polices allow it. Again, this was brought up and discussed at the Set Aside hearing in front of the Judge."


Excel's most recent reply:

Dear Sir

This is exactly why I am asking for the insurance policy as part of disclosure. Given that you have not provided the document but have instead proceeded to write paragraphs of irrelevant material I can only assume that there were no other named drivers on the policy. The Court can draw an adverse inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen our position that you were in fact the driver.

Your comments that we 'have not met the court's requirement for 'beyond the balance of probability' is quiet frankly one of the most absurd comments I have ever read.  The decision rest solely on the presiding Judge hearing the case as to who's 'story' they prefer and they will reach a decision 'on balance' based on the evidence and submissions presented. Fortunately, it is not for you to make that decision for the Judge. 

Lastly, the test on a set aside vs a small claims are entirely different. If we had 'lost' the set aside then the Court would have struck the claim out. They did not do so and therefore this indicates that there is clearly a triable matter.


Tempted to just ignore them now until the trial, they're on the backfoot, don't need to give them any rope. I honestly don't mind sending over the document, if not doing so would harm my case in court. However, if I am under no legal obligation to send it to them then I won't. As previously mentioned, the Judge was satisfied that given so much time had passed since the alleged event that it would be difficult to know who was driving. When the set aside my CCJ she specifically said that she believes the defendant has a defendable case for the claim and therefore was why she reserved costs.

B789

So, if it gets back in front of a judge, you can see where they are going to press the judge and you have the perfect counter in that your insurance policy at that time is irrelevant because anyone with their own insurance that gives them third party cover or better can drive your car with your permission.

"The Court can draw an adverse inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen our position that you were in fact the driver."

The Court can draw a favourable inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen my position that you are unable to identify the driver.

Coupon-mad

Just reply:

Best of luck with your 'story' Jake.

milkybk

B789 said:

So, if it gets back in front of a judge, you can see where they are going to press the judge and you have the perfect counter in that your insurance policy at that time is irrelevant because anyone with their own insurance that gives them third party cover or better can drive your car with your permission.

"The Court can draw an adverse inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen our position that you were in fact the driver."

The Court can draw a favourable inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen my position that you are unable to identify the driver.

I agree, thank you.

Would you bother replying or just leave it until the hearing now? I'm not harming my case by not supplying said document am I? I didn't affect the set aside and Excel didn't ask for it then (or if they did and I have forgotten then I didn't give it to them).

It's been over 6 years since the alleged event now (21//01/2017) - Pretty hard to argue that anyone would remember who was driving X car on a day that long ago.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Just reply:

Best of luck with your 'story' Jake.

Haha, the song "hit the road, Jack, don't you come back no more no more" fits nicely here, well, almost. 

Fruitcake

They have asked. You have replied. I wouldn't bother to reply again unless you have got time on your hands and want to waste theirs. Just be aware thought that anything you put in writing to them or dear Jake can be put in front of the judge unless it is headed "without prejudice."

I would still add the initial correspondence from Jake in your earlier post today in your WS or a supplementary WS "as requested by the claimant" to show that they stated they do not know who was driving.

Whether there is another named driver or not on your policy is irrelevant as long as the driver at the time was insured and had the owner's permission to use it.

I give you an example that might educate mister Jake on the finer points of vehicular insurance.
I am the registered keeper of a car owned by my Lovely Cousin. It is insured by me with her as a named driver.
Our son is currently using the car under his own insurance because his is in a garage being repaired. He is not a named driver on my policy, but has his Mum's permission to drive it.

Grizebeck

milkybk said:

Their reply, I don't think they're very happy   

Part of my reply they're referring too:
"As I'm sure you're aware, it is not just myself or named drivers who have access to any of my vehicles. It's anyone I deem can use said vehicles, who have their own relevant insurance policy to cover them whilst using third party vehicles. You're fully aware this is this case, many polices allow it. Again, this was brought up and discussed at the Set Aside hearing in front of the Judge."


Excel's most recent reply:

Dear Sir

This is exactly why I am asking for the insurance policy as part of disclosure. Given that you have not provided the document but have instead proceeded to write paragraphs of irrelevant material I can only assume that there were no other named drivers on the policy. The Court can draw an adverse inference to this and therefore this only goes to strengthen our position that you were in fact the driver.

Your comments that we 'have not met the court's requirement for 'beyond the balance of probability' is quiet frankly one of the most absurd comments I have ever read.  The decision rest solely on the presiding Judge hearing the case as to who's 'story' they prefer and they will reach a decision 'on balance' based on the evidence and submissions presented. Fortunately, it is not for you to make that decision for the Judge. 

Lastly, the test on a set aside vs a small claims are entirely different. If we had 'lost' the set aside then the Court would have struck the claim out. They did not do so and therefore this indicates that there is clearly a triable matter.


Tempted to just ignore them now until the trial, they're on the backfoot, don't need to give them any rope. I honestly don't mind sending over the document, if not doing so would harm my case in court. However, if I am under no legal obligation to send it to them then I won't. As previously mentioned, the Judge was satisfied that given so much time had passed since the alleged event that it would be difficult to know who was driving. When the set aside my CCJ she specifically said that she believes the defendant has a defendable case for the claim and therefore was why she reserved costs.

Do as CM suggests and reply with just that and then just leave it until the hearing
And when their advocate tries to bring up the insurance issue you already know how to counter that
He is on a hiding to nothing

B789

milkybk said:
Would you bother replying or just leave it until the hearing now? I'm not harming my case by not supplying said document am I? I didn't affect the set aside and Excel didn't ask for it then (or if they did and I have forgotten then I didn't give it to them).

It's been over 6 years since the alleged event now (21//01/2017) - Pretty hard to argue that anyone would remember who was driving X car on a day that long ago.

I would have thought that it is not worth the effort of playing into their tit-for-tat argument. Just get on with your life and wait for your day in court.