Minster Baywatch / ANPR claim form received

Redx

Le_Kirk said:

w12ee3e said:

Redx said:

w12ee3e said:

Le_Kirk said:

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

Not yet, I might need to come back to this. Got me thinking though, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned in the newbie guide but can the PPC scammer simply without their WS until say moments before the deadline so I can't respond to it in my own WS?

You both have the same deadline , the one on the court order , so yes !

I think the Redacted section should be off the template unfortunately as I'm sure that scammy tactic is standard practise in this so called 'industry'.

What do you mean here?  If you are referring to the examples of @jrhys and @Nosy then they are not templates but EXAMPLES of style and format.

Which I did tell the OP in a previous reply above , so templates on the brain

To the OP , at this stage , There are NO templates !!  Just previous work by other members !

w12ee3e

I'm looking at some of the Fairlie v Fenton mentions in the forum. I think I CAN use it as there's ambiguity on who exactly the principle of the site actually is (you'll see from the 1st page of the thread that Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust AND National Trust are displayed on the signs) this also ties up well with the point raised regarding whether it's Bransby and Wilson or MB who a contract would be formed with.

What I'm struggling is with how to word it in my WS? Any suggestions please?

I really don't want to be teaching the Judge to suck eggs or put in a paragraph that looks like it was written by a year 9 student.

Coupon-mad

Google it and the phrase (single word) moneysavingexpert and you will find how people have referred to it before in WS; I recall @bargepole had some wording he used.

You can use it. There is a disclosed principal on those signs.

bargepole

This is the wording I have used in such cases:

The present Claimant, therefore, has no locus standi to litigate in this matter, and the claim has been issued in the wrong name. The Claimant may be considered to be acting as an agent of the car park owner, however as the identity of the principal is disclosed on the signage, the authorities of Fairlie v Fenton [1870] LR 5 Exch 169, and Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association [1891] 1 QB 370, both hold that an agent may not sue in its own name in circumstances where the principal is disclosed.

w12ee3e

bargepole said:

This is the wording I have used in such cases:

The present Claimant, therefore, has no locus standi to litigate in this matter, and the claim has been issued in the wrong name. The Claimant may be considered to be acting as an agent of the car park owner, however as the identity of the principal is disclosed on the signage, the authorities of Fairlie v Fenton [1870] LR 5 Exch 169, and Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association [1891] 1 QB 370, both hold that an agent may not sue in its own name in circumstances where the principal is disclosed.

Coupon-mad said:

Google it and the phrase (single word) moneysavingexpert and you will find how people have referred to it before in WS; I recall @bargepole had some wording he used.

You can use it. There is a disclosed principal on those signs.

Thanks for appearing on the C5 documentary by the way hope it feels good to be famous!

bargepole

w12ee3e said:

Thanks for appearing on the C5 documentary by the way hope it feels good to be famous!

I took my car in for a service last week, and the garage man said 'Hey, I saw you on TV the other night'.

But when I was presented with the bill, there was no celebrity discount applied 

w12ee3e

I think I'm all there, pending seeing the MB WS. On one of the signs, I quote

All visitors must pay for parking, no matter how long they stay, unless they hold a valid parking permit

Seeing as enforcement is automated by an ANPR camera, Isn't there some sort of precedent set in terms of how long you can enter/exit? I think I saw something about this on another thread. Yet that statement seems to contradict that. It's actually incredible hard to discern the rules at the site based on the signs, or am I splitting hairs?

Redx

The relevant CoP has a section on grace periods , so that is where you find it , not on wordy signage !

w12ee3e

On MCOL, it's showing as a DQ has been sent to me as of three days ago. Nothing received in the post. I guess there isn't a way to fill it online?

Le_Kirk

w12ee3e said:

On MCOL, it's showing as a DQ has been sent to me as of three days ago. Nothing received in the post. I guess there isn't a way to fill it online?

Yes there is and unsurprisingly you will find a link to it in the NEWBIE sticky or by following the link that @KeithP sent on 14 November at 5:06PM and reminded you here 13 December at 8:01PM or I now see in the following post!.