Pulse colindale victory - the saga continues..

Grizebeck

Yes explain that to the judge and hand a copy to the judge AND to the other side.

Coupon-mad

FUKCPM said:

Of course - it was intended to be at Willesden County Court but despite no prior notice it was moved to a video-call so I instead I sat in the car - the claimant's solicitor (sat in an office somewhere up North) was aware of this change however which is odd!

DDJ Crowe was the judge and he was a very pleasant and polite man. He had read my Witness Statement and began by asking if I had managed to read the recently lodged 150-odd page Trial Bundle in advance of the case. I admitted I hadn't but that I was quietly confident of my position and so did not feel the need to read more than the original WS sent by them.

He took note of me asking for the case to be struck out given a previous case, and said he would listen to my reasoning, despite no formal application being made. This failed, as despite me providing the case number, which the claimant said they had no recollection of, I had not provided the documents in advance and my court order was not sufficient as the DDJ was not clear that the cases were indeed identical. I said I thought the case number and order would be enough but he said he needed to see the particulars of claim as well as other court papers. This also caused me to fail in receiving any unreasonable costs as he could not prove that the claimant had acted unreasonably as the previous case may have significantly differed from this. He did advise me to provide all documentation in advance of the next case and that then I would have more grounds to claim unreasonable costs.

When the case began the claimant's solicitor said perhaps the case should be bundled with the next case as until that point he had not been informed of a previous case or a future one and so felt that they should be heard together. I think he had realised he had lost before it began and was attempting to prolong the inevitable. The DDJ said he would instead like to hear the case presented to him in full as he was in a position to make a judgement. The second time the solicitor argued this point he was far more firmly rebutted.

The DDJ then asked the solicitor to present his case which he did. The crux of which being 1 count of not parking in marked bay and 1 count of not displaying a valid permit. I was then asked to respond to which I said neither of this applied to me given no mention in my lease. The solicitor was then allowed to question me which he did by pointing out the picture of the sign and asking if I had seen it before, if I understood the terms, and if I accepted that I was in contravention of them. I said yes to all of them but restated that none of this applied to me.

The DDJ noted that he realised too that I was responding to a hypothetical scenario and that the solicitor was within his rights to question me in such a forthright manner. He then pointed out that I had made clear that none of this supersedes my lease to which the solicitor said the landlord had a right to alter parking within the development.

The DDJ then made his decision noting that my lease said that I had both a right to use the Residential Common Parts and that my space was allocated to me. The landlords supposed alterations made no benefit to me and the parking contract offered was not providing something I already had a right to. DISMISSED!

Print off and take the transcripts for:

Henderson v Henderson  
 

(Authority re cause of action estoppel)

and

Ferguson v British Gas

(Authority re Harassment)

..and ask the Judge to please strike out this  'duplicate facts' claim as offending against the doctrine of 'cause of action estoppel' and please could the Judge consider providing a short narrative Judgment to help you and this court turn off the tap and stop this 'drip-drip' form of harassment with claim after claim, which should have only troubled the court once.

They keep coming back for more bites of the same cherry, as if they are expecting a different outcome.  There is a disregard for the 'Overriding Objective' (resolving disputes justly and at minimal cost and time).

Suggest perhaps this is a case where this vexatious Claimant be estopped from filling any new claims against this defendant re historical parking charges at this same location, without seeking the written permission of this court.

Finally:
EXPECT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JUDGE AND DON'T ASSUME THEY WILL BE WITH YOU.  EXPECT NOT TO HAVE AN EASY TIME.

That is my experience of court.  I've never lost a case but hearings never quite go the way expected because Judges are human and are all different. Never assume the same outcome.