Claimant (UKPCM) invoking CPR 27.9 so that only Gladstones ( or rep) will likely attend hearing

weary2021

The Court hearing is  in just over 2 weeks involving  a private parking tkt. 

I have followed your suggested template, adding in my bits as advised and thanks you to this board for that excellent  advise.

Currently, In their witness bundle Gladstones advise the Claimant will probably not be at the hearing . My problem here is with the Claimants exhibit of the parking agreement with their client, below.

My case against them starts with their Locus Standi which they purport to show by way of an a very unclear "agreement "seeming involving two leaseholder companies involved in a forbidden parking area  which is seemingly outside one Company area  but "signed for" by another Company in another parking  but where both Companies are now dissolved.

Additionally, my Companies House screen shots( exhibited in my  w.s. )  suggest the veracity of this agreement is (  and I'm being generous here)  questionable,  to say the least. I have written to Gladstones objecting to the Claimants non appearance because I feel they need to able to  reasonably be able "prove" this agreement ( which I think will be impossible).

Also, The Agreement  breaches the Companies Act 2006 and additionally, by being redacted, it violates the binding Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited[2020] EWCA Ref. Paras 74 & 75 ''… ''...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision…I have already addressed this in my witness statement 

I have searched but am unable to find out how to approach the Court directly to insist on the Claimant attendance and then enable the Claimant to not have this agreement considered. 

Finally, the Claimant is relying on the appeal case of  Judge Saffmon hearing between VS and   Nick Idle et al on 19/12/2018 at Wakefield which   I argue is distinguished ( in my favour) because in my case there were no entrance signs at all  whereas it was allowed for the parking Company on appeal  due to the entrance involved being clearly marked by two sign about 1 m by 2m which should have been seen.  If there were any  entrance signs,  I would not be fighting this case.

Is there any advice I additionally might seek at this late stage, for example  I see nothing covering the Claimants usage of CPR 27.9  and objecting to it ?, Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Umkomaas

It's standard response from solicitors across the piece saying that their client is too frightened in case they have to answer difficult questions unlikely to appear in court.  But there will almost certainly be a gun-for-hire advocate appearing who will be so poorly briefed (often only receiving the papers the evening before) that they are unable to answer any tricky questions. You can suggest that the Judge discuss the contract issues with the advocate. 

Others will confirm (or otherwise) whether it might be an option to email the court (for the attention of the presiding Judge) asking that as there are important questions that require answers only the claimant can provide, a request for the attendance of the claimant would ensure a fully informed court hearing. 

Coupon-mad

UKCPM will not attend and are entitled to send a rep, and it can be a real headache to question their Right of Audience and might get the Judges back up thinking you are looking for loopholes, when the Judge just wants to hear your honest account.

Good luck and it's refreshing to hear from someone who has done all the groundwork without a long needy thread (albeit I do understand how stressful it is and that lots of people do need a thread!).

Can you confirm you have done the Government Consultation - see link below?  

We are also getting people to complain to their MPs to pose questions to the MHCLG because there is a horrific (very obviously PPC-led) naive mistake - indeed a U turn - in the proposed framework that will CAUSE court claims:

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation

We need to know you have done the Government Consultation and sent an email to your MP as explained here, please do:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78515438#Comment_78515438

To be clear, we need individuals (you and your family and friends, separately) to do the consultation linked there AND we are now calling for everyone to ask their MPs to raise with the MHCLG, what the heck has gone wrong since March, that they now think it's OK for false debt recovery costs to be added that positively drive cases to court?  

What are the MHCLG thinking? 

That added sum was supposed to end.  The Knight Act included MPs unanimously condemning charges as high as £120, but this proposal takes it up to £200 and FUNDS THE ROBOCLAIM RACE TO COURT 

We want MPs to kick up a stink.  This MUST be stopped.

weary2021

THx, I have already  started responding on the consultation and saved my progress to date . I now need to read more about responding to be able to ensure my views  have maximal impact. I intend to complete this over next few days especially given the was it now appears to be going pear shaped since March .

Generally: Is there any further advice ref my original query on cpr 27.9 ? This will be much appreciated if someone has any further  thoughts,  as well as that of the appeal case of  Judge Saffmon hearing between VCS and   Nick Idle et al on 19/12/2018 at Wakefield which I argued is distinguished ( in my favour, bizarrely, given there were no entrance signs at all in my case )

bargepole

A party does not have to attend Court (or a virtual hearing by video or telephone), provided they give notice to the Court and Defendant at least 7 days beforehand, as per CPR 27.9.

They can be represented by a freelance advocate, as almost all parking cases are, or they can send nobody and ask the Judge to consider their arguments on the papers.

As a Defendant, you can say that the non-attendance of the Claimant deprives you of the opportunity to cross-examine their witness, and this places you at a disadvantage. Accordingly, their WS should be given less weight than yours, for which you are present, and able to answer any questions about.

If the Judge considers it essential that a witness does attend to be questioned, he may adjourn the hearing and issue a Witness Summons for a future date, but that very rarely happens, and even more rarely in parking cases, which most Judges regard as irritating dross that they are forced to deal with, when they could be getting on with far more important matters.

weary2021

Bargepole , thank you so much for that advise. It's very reassuring as well as informing for,  my approach to my virtual day in Court soon.