PCM - High Point Village/Hayes and Harlington Train Station PCN

Coupon-mad

Make sure you:

- ask the Judge at the start, to please strike out the claim per the two persuasive appeal authorities of Chan & Akande

- ask at the end for your costs in full.

ANON_MR_X

Thank you @Coupon-mad

I will report back to inform everybody how it went

ANON_MR_X

Hearing has concluded. Moorside didn't turn up but they had submitted a witness statement/notified the court they will not attend and requested the court to decide claim in their absence based on the evidence already submitted.

To the best of my memory (I won't be able to elaborate as this is all I can remember), the following occurred:

As advised, I asked the judge to strike out the claim at the start as per the two persuasive appeal authorities of Chan & Akande. As soon as I mentioned Chan, I was asked to stop speaking by the judge and asked it this was an internet defence. I was not expecting this question so I replied yes as to not insult his intelligence. I was then told he wouldn't entertain my request any further until he read both witness statements.

The judge then proceeded to inform me he has confirmation that both the claimant and defendent witness statements had been submitted but he didn't have either in front of him. He asked if I had copies to which I replied yes. He asked if he could have them and when I provided, he stated he was grateful for this and then asked me to leave the chamber while he read these statements.

I was summoned back by the usher about 30 mins later. 

The judge then stated that he had read both witness statements and he won't strike out the case as he was satisfied the POC was sufficient.

He also dismissed the claimants strike out request that I was "wasting the courts time using an internet defence" and stated he considered my defence and it raised triable issues. 

The judge then proceeded to inform of his decision and I took notes to the best of my ability but missed a lot as he was speaking faster than I could scribble. What I got is as follows:

- Due to freeholder agreement, he was satisfied claimant was appointed to take parking claim and had parking control
- Stated signage is hearsay according to evidence but signage not challenged by myself
- Stated claimant only limited to £60, entitled to £60
- Returning to signage, stated the vehicle paragraph needs to be construed. Info on paragraph 17 is hearsay, not information on claimant's knowledge. It may or may not be true but hearsay.

Finally, he stated as there was a failure to prove breach in the claimants evidence photos (there was nothing to identify car park, there was no aerial view on map photos and photos don't show/prove where I was parked), he can't assert from the evidence there was a breach so the claim was dismissed on this basis.

I asked for my costs in full at the end as advised. The judge took a look at my costs assessment sheet but said as the claim had also raised triable issues, he was only prepared to award £47.50. This is payable within 14 days and an order of court is served to pay this sum. If the sum is not paid by the claimant, the sum will then be payable by enforcement.

This is finally over after 4 years. Thank you to everybody on this forum. 

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done & congrats!  Finally you won.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Le_Kirk

Glad you won, well done, although I am surprised the judge: -
1. didn't have the witness statements in front of him (good job you had copies); what is the point of the claimant and defendant both sending WSs to the court if they don't end up with the judge - you can't answer that!
2. found the particulars of claim "were sufficient"

SamDude

Well done!

(questions for the resident helpers here)
So are judges wise to internet defences (what is wrong with these defences), or just this judge?
Is there any advantage referring to Chan/etc in future or does the advice here need to adapt? 

Coupon-mad

We don't need to adapt it.

Over the years (decades of doing this) we've adapted defences hugely but Chan and Akande are correct, on point and do persuade MOST judges. You can never lead all the horses to water and make them all drink!

Umkomaas

Any case is subject to Judge Bingo.  99% of times the numbers are all correctly aligned.