Minster Baywatch / ANPR claim form received

w12ee3e

Coupon-mad said:

Reply to defence?

Or do you mean their WS and evidence? If so, weren't you late too, as you had the same deadline?

On the list of Court Orders, it said a copy of the Reply to Defence had to be sent to the Defendant by X date, and they lapsed on it. Oops. Got a separate deadline for the WS. Aiming to submit my own WS as close to that deadline as possible so they don't have any chance to try and counter theirs based on mine.

D_P_Dance said:

Just realized MB/Gladstones sent their Reply to Defence LATE.Past the date mandated by the Court. By almost a week in fact. Can I use that to my advantage?

Bring it to the attentopn of the judge immediately and ask that the claim be struck out.

Just done! Forwarded their emails/timestamps. My local Court are dreadful though it'll probably just be slept on.

w12ee3e

Just a bit more on the reply to defence I received from Gladstones, there's a section 'License agreement' and I believe the signatures are redacted. Any thoughts? If so does the following apply and should I add it to my WS?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure/p1

Reminder - I'm fighting on the premise that the signs made little or no mention of Bransby and Wilson so no contract would be formed so the rest might be moot points, but picking apart the copy of their license agreement (Minster Baywatch and Bransby) I see it was signed in 2017 and the agreement is for only an initial 12 months. Any thoughts or am I going into overkill mode? Either way it all look terrible and I'd be amazing if they don't make a discontinuance application once they review my WS (if they're even bothered) but if that happens I'll take them to the CC for my costs.

Coupon-mad

Does the Appendix 12.2 (referred to in 6.1) show the same as the other MB contract on the forum, that they are offering a bounty of £30 per paid PCN for self ticketing cases?  If so, please report it to the BPA, as I advised on the other thread you posted on.

Clearly MB are only acting as agents of a disclosed principal.  That contract is only between BW and the landowner.  MB are not a party to it and it even mentions that their 'agents' will operate. 

Search the forum for posts by @bargepole about Fairlie v Fenton, if you haven't already.  This has been used in MB cases before.  An agent has zero legal locus to sue.

Crickley Hill has terrible TripAdvisor reviews, which will be useful as an Exhibit.

w12ee3e

Just in reference to complaining about receiving the Reply to Defence late, I raised this with the Court who've now just come back to me with the following -

‘it is not for the Court to advise X on the legal steps he might take. If he wishes to seek a strike out of the claim on the basis that the reply was mis-served or not served by 19th February 2022 the required date, albeit that any error was addressed it appears on 24th February 2022, then he must make the relevant application.’

Question - How and what application do I need to make, please?

Coupon-mad Got Fairlie v Fenton cited, thanks I think with all considered this case is going to be pretty clear cut. Just hoping to be awarded expenses at this point.

Coupon-mad

No application; they are expensive.  Raise it at the hearing.

w12ee3e

Just had my hearing the other day. I know the board loves an update so here's one.

• The Judge gave MB / Gladstone's hell because the Court never received their WS, it was a complete mess
• The Judge asked if the Defendant had received a copy of this
• Defendant was unable to confirm 100% of receipt
  
• The Judge ordered that MB / GS send a copy of their WS to both Defendant First class AND another copy Signed for / Special delivery
• The Claimaint requested this to be added to their costs
• The Judge refused this request
• The Judge ordered that the case be adjourned so that the Defendant has time to properly read and understand the Claimant's WS
  
• The Judge asked the Defendant if they would like the new hearing to attended or via phone call
• The Defendant confirmed that they wished that the new hearing be attended ;-)
• The Claimant protested this due to them being 'on the other side of the country' and requested the new hearing to be via telephone or teams
• The Judge refused and agreed with the defendant that the hearing can be held in-house
  

Not a win or a strike out due to the missing documents but a good result still. I feel I can infer that the Judge is actually onside with me and is actively trying to make the Claimant's life a bit more difficult.

The whole claim is like £260-ish and MB/GS would be MAD to proceed now, especially as they probably won't attend the in-person hearing. Even if the PPC were to win surely this will be at cost to them thus breaking the business model :-)

w12ee3e

Also, moot point but my WS is virtually 50 pages! The Judge wants a 90 minute session to examine it ALL. This is going to put even more cost pressure on the PPC especially if they actually attend the in-court hearing.

Le_Kirk

Once again, leniency and tolerance accorded to a claimant.  You can guarantee if your WS had been late or not supplied, the victory would have gone to the clamant!

Coupon-mad

I predict a discontinuance!  

w12ee3e

Le_Kirk said:

Once again, leniency and tolerance accorded to a claimant.  You can guarantee if your WS had been late or not supplied, the victory would have gone to the clamant!

Yes I thought it was ridiculous. I wanted to ask the Judge if they would consider striking out the whole claim on that very basis but I don't think I would've been allowed to speak unless spoken to

Coupon-mad said:

I predict a discontinuance!  

Unfortunately, yes. And I say unfortunately because I (and with yours and the forums help) put some serious sweat and effort into writing out the WS.49 pages including exhibits and transcripts. I wanted to have all my arguments heard to see how it would've held up. Especially the new points invoking the Dept for Leveling (feb 2022)