Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle

Coupon-mad

You can certainly re-word it but don't lose the point altogether.

aphex007

Redx said:

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, once you've added the rest of the template defence and signed, dated and emailed it off to the CCBC.

Thanks again Coupon-mad.  One thing is niggling me regarding the template defence paragraphs.  The ones that are referring to incoherent signage etc.  In my case there is no signage on the road I was parked on, so how would that apply or be relevant in my case?  Or should they remain in the Defence by way of default as the PPC are referring to the signs in the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form and will continue to do so through the whole process?

The latter , your case starts with your Witness statement Plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment in several months time

The defence template has doors that are ajar , the WS opens the doors to the TARDIS inside

Just to clarify you are saying yes it should all stay in, because it leaves it open ended, so I can use many aspects in the WS, is that correct?

aphex007

Coupon-mad said:

You can certainly re-word it but don't lose the point altogether.

I'm not sure I fully follow you?

Redx

aphex007 said:

Redx said:

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, once you've added the rest of the template defence and signed, dated and emailed it off to the CCBC.

Thanks again Coupon-mad.  One thing is niggling me regarding the template defence paragraphs.  The ones that are referring to incoherent signage etc.  In my case there is no signage on the road I was parked on, so how would that apply or be relevant in my case?  Or should they remain in the Defence by way of default as the PPC are referring to the signs in the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form and will continue to do so through the whole process?

The latter , your case starts with your Witness statement Plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment in several months time

The defence template has doors that are ajar , the WS opens the doors to the TARDIS inside

Just to clarify you are saying yes it should all stay in, because it leaves it open ended, so I can use many aspects in the WS, is that correct?

yes

you can expand on any defence point in your WS , plus you can add your own exhibits , plus you can comment on the claim POC and also on the claimants WS and their exhibits too, so plenty to get your teeth into

Umkomaas

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can certainly re-word it but don't lose the point altogether.

I'm not sure I fully follow you?

Don't erase the entire signage section.  Signage deficiency is probably the most successful winning point at court. The signage, after all, is the 'contract' between PPC and motorist.  If it's deficient, or even missing, then say so! 

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

aphex007 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can certainly re-word it but don't lose the point altogether.

I'm not sure I fully follow you?

Don't erase the entire signage section.  Signage deficiency is probably the most successful winning point at court. The signage, after all, is the 'contract' between PPC and motorist.  If it's deficient, or even missing, then say so! 

What @Coupon-mad means and what @Umkomaas confirms is that if you do not have any point in your defence relating to signage then you cannot expand upon it in the witness statement and you are stuck with what the claimant tells the judge!

Jenni_D

I think the OP is querying whether incoherent signage should be in the defence when they've already got a point about NO signage? If it doesn't exist, how can it be incoherent/poorly worded/unable to form a contract/etc.?

Le_Kirk

Good point.  Not sure how a judge and/or the claimant would react if the defendant put something in the WS that wasn't in the defence - even if it is a negative like no signage.  There needs to be something about signage in the defence but maybe, as you say and OP queries, not incoherent/illegible signs; if they weren't there how could they be unreadable.

aphex007

Jenni_D said:

I think the OP is querying whether incoherent signage should be in the defence when they've already got a point about NO signage? If it doesn't exist, how can it be incoherent/poorly worded/unable to form a contract/etc.?

Thanks @Jenni_D yes correct that is EXACTLY what I'm saying.  I did have another paragraph in my own written defence which I have now removed as Coupon_mad advised it added nothing useful, but it was relating to signs on the OTHER estate roads but NOT the actual road I parked on.

I'm now not sure what is best in my scenario?  I certainly do not want to restrict what I can put in the WS further down the line and I would have thought the Claimant is bound to reference signage regardless or not that it existed on the road in question? or am I wrong?

Shall I repost my own written defence and put the removed paragraph back in in bold so you can all see it more easily and give further opinion/recommendations?

aphex007

Thanks everyone for the help so far, but I need to submit my Defence this Monday before 4pm.  So would appreciate again on what's now correct in my scenerio, as some extra queries have been raised?