New direction questionnaire from a stayed case in March 2020!!

Coupon-mad

You will almost certainly be able to find an image from that date on GSV.

Debunked

Hello all
I have been working hard on my WS all evening. I have completed it, but wanted to know what you experts think. Its mostly the same as the recommended one on the newbies thread at the minute with pictures and the start in my own words. The hearing is in June, but I have to submit evidence by the 5/1/22. Shall I wait until 4th to send or shall I just send straight away?
Thanks for you help
Also how do I send a pdf doc on the forum can only see images to add?

Debunked

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y63uPeK6WdijkYB_kZjEVr1W3KYSFVKh/view?usp=sharing
Hopefully this link to the pdf works.

Coupon-mad

The better (more recent example) WS than the one in the NEWBIES thread are those by @Nosy and @jrhys now.

I haven't had a chance to look at your draft tonight but don't use the Southampton case of Crosby.

Do use the wording and 2 transcripts that I posted a new discussion about in early Summer.

Debunked

Ok I Have Crosby defense in. Will take it out

Coupon-mad

We know, because that's in the one in the NEWBIES thread but we have better versions and transcripts this year.

Go find the discussion I started about two transcripts to include in WS.  Look in my profile. No link needed.

I also posted a suggestion this month that quoted the PAP rules and the Select Committee about the costs being proportionate.  I quoted stuff about the PAP not being used to 'run up costs' and will be the sort of thing I'd quote now, if it were me as Defendant.

Debunked

Hello all new WS with all relevant new bits added. I would appreciate someone having a look over it if possible. Thanks

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MYNgJrjFF5paFAvLYMuJ1xt6RzA6XmwW58JBqdXNBEI/edit?usp=sharing

Fruitcake

If the claimant also has to file a WS, then I would wait until a day or two before the deadline to submit yours in the hope you get to see theirs first. It's really a case of seeing, who blinks first now.

That link is asking me to request access, yet I can get straight in to your previous version. I think you might need to change one of the settings for us to be able to view it.

Debunked

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MYNgJrjFF5paFAvLYMuJ1xt6RzA6XmwW58JBqdXNBEI/edit?usp=sharing

Ok changed it to anyone with link thanks @Fruitcake, and yes I will wait.  It's annoying the hearing is sooo far away that the goalposts may have changed again by then which may make my WS and defence a bit out dated. 

One more thing when sending off, do I print all docs off. Sign and date relevant bits. Then scan and send to Court and Claimant? That's the way I see it in my head, just want to be sure.

Coupon-mad

The two transcripts are too blurry to read.  The versions in my thread about them weren't blurry and were supplied as PDFs I think, so I'm not sure what's happened.

You have a section near the start that says the ANPR image 'clearly' shows the driver was not you, but then you say you can't tell who it is (the second bit sounds like an untruth to me, and most likely to a Judge).  Better to state this appears to be a family member insured on the car at the time, who will not be named because there is no such obligation in law (then quote Henry Greenslade from the POPLA Annual Report 2015, as seen in shedloads of other defences you can find). 

And para 9 of your WS quotes the POFA but then you haven't made the obvious argument that must follow:- it is submitted that this Claimant failed to include the required wording and instead issued a non-POFA PCN (driver liability only).

You haven't copied everything I put in the post I made about the Select Committee.  You omitted probably THE most important part, the stuff from the PAP rules!


Two 'I was driving' copying errors here:

11.        However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case where I parked in a manner later approved of by the Claimant (as per paragraph 9). As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage and varying acceptability of parking areas are precisely the sorts of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

12.        Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, the sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant – which I didn’t as it was not present – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.