Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

That's been added.  Feeling alot more confident about this - thanks alot for your help.

The latest WS:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=6ege2dskrqyqxg6gnopfdzgi9&dl=0

Slightly different topic: I am not entirely sure how long I stayed on the site - however, it appears the PCN was issued after 10 minutes or so, so it must have been at least that - the SAR does not say anything about the total time I was parked (and it was long enough ago that I have no idea!).  If they start discussing the actual length of time (and that exceeds 10 minutes) - would I have a case against them for not disclosing my data to me, or have the court strike out the case based on not providing me with my full information?

Should I include the SAR as evidence in case this does come up?

Coupon-mad

I think they will talk about that so you can only respond with what you know, which might be that it was only minutes and no terms were seen because they failed to make the signs sufficiently prominent.

_blueberry_

Yes, it was certainly minutes.  So no need to include the SAR?  I also have not mentioned 10 minutes - only stated in the WS that it was a "reasonable period of time".

Coupon-mad

Don't mention the SAR. Irrelevant unless it revealed a silver bullet problem that kills their case. Doubt it.  Presumably it includes all photos and they span over 10 minutes?

_blueberry_

It includes some photos - not sure if its "all".  The latest timestamp on the photos is the same as the issue time for the PCN (i.e. 10 minutes after arrival).  I would have thought they had a video recording but they did not send me that in the SAR response.

_blueberry_

One (I hope) final question on the WS.  I have included this as my costs from another WS - I will need to take a day off work, is this covered in point 43.b?

43.In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:(a) The previously reserved costs of £315, and(b) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and(c) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

UncleThomasCobley

_blueberry_ said:

It includes some photos - not sure if its "all". 

If you did a SAR and they responded, then their response must include all!

1505grandad

"40. The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this is the same Claimant and the exact same vague POC. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out"

Is it the same claimant?

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

"40. The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch (August 2023), and deliver the same outcome given this is the same Claimant and the exact same vague POC. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out"

Is it the same claimant?

Good catch, @1505grandad

_blueberry_

@1505grandad - eagle eye!  Thanks for that, no idea how I missed it.