Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

Coupon-mad

Judgment from His Honour Judge HHC Murch 

should read:

Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch 

_blueberry_

One more attempt to make it more precise - better?  Or have I missed something?

The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Please now post your whole WS so newbies signposted here see the final one in full.

_blueberry_

Latest version - hopefully final!
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umwm4jzp7csnmfz7hwv92/WS.docx?rlkey=u63ica7muz0zy6mpar1mfzyl0&dl=0

_blueberry_

In un-redacting the WS - I came across a different question if you could assist please.  I recently moved address (but still have access to my old home as my friends still live there).  I could attempt to change my address with the county court but may just confuse matters.  The question is, should I put my current address (on my driving license, etc) on the WS or my old one (which the case was filed with)?

_blueberry_

I have submitted this with my new address.  Thanks again for all your help and guidance on this - fingers crossed.

_blueberry_

A couple of things I wanted to ask if anyone could opine please. 

I got the WS from the claimant.  One part discusses the "template defence" and that it was "copied" from the internet.  Is this template and would I need to counter this if asked?

Secondly, I got an email from the court saying that the hearing will be via CVP - is this a problem at all and does it change anything in terms of the likely outcome?

Coupon-mad

CVP is normal and saves you travelling.  Doesn't change the outcome and at least you can see the Judge's face and tell from body language and expression which points they are interested in and when to move on!

You can ignore the Claimants criticising the Template Defence.  There's nothing wrong with you using the internet (where else would you get this level of specific niche parking law knowledge?) and the Claimant's WS is a template anyway! 

Coupon-mad

Perfect. A silver bullet.

I suggest you delete that post now in case they are reading this thread.

Spring that bomb on them when it's your turn to speak, and if criticised for not raising it pre-hearing, point out that there is binding High Court appeal case law that confirms it is not the burden of one party to have to point out the error of the other:

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2018/08/21/no-duty-on-a-party-to-inform-an-opposing-party-they-are-making-an-error-the-appeal-judgment-in-phoenix-in-full/
“None of that, in my judgment, requires the court to impose on a party a duty to inform an opposing party of an error which has been made, even if there is still time for the opposing party to cure that error.“

The full appeal judgment is available on BAILLI at Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd (Appellant) v Woodward & Anor  [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch)

Don't forget to ask for your costs in full for this wholly unreasonable and carelessly negligent conduct.  Not only has that mistake left them with no evidence but it has wasted your time and the court's time.  

It's a typical roboclaim from a careless bulk litigator with zero checks & balances of facts, and the rest of the prolix WS is a template and they have accused you of not understanding your own defence.  It's absolutely unreasonable for them to throw mud at a consumer for daring to consult and use good bespoke advice on the internet.  You should get all your costs as this behaviour meets the high bar of vexatious litigation.

 

paulstevens64

Now we all want to know what "it" is!

Hopefully after the hearing we can all be updated?