CST Law case - Judgement made

LDast

Where on this sign that you showed us is there mention of Anchor Security Services Ltd and their company registration number?

lurpdog101

LDast said:

Where on this sign that you showed us is there mention of Anchor Security Services Ltd and their company registration number?

it is not on this sign - it is on the other sign for the T&Cs. Does this mean I could argue against that point? As it should be clearly labelled on every sign? They have this sign, then about 10m or more away another sign with the T&C, then this one again etc, in welsh or english

lurpdog101

these are the 3 photos they have provided of the T&C signs. I believe 2 of them are of the same sign which is almost inaccessible behind trees!! No idea where the other one is in relation to the car park

Coupon-mad

lurpdog101 said:

Also the signs do state if charge not paid, then it will be passed to a Debt Recovery Agent where extra charges may occur.

But no sum of money specified. Not an agreed part of the contract then.

lurpdog101

Coupon-mad said:

lurpdog101 said:

Also the signs do state if charge not paid, then it will be passed to a Debt Recovery Agent where extra charges may occur.

But no sum of money specified. Not an agreed part of the contract then.

thank you. I have noted this down to use. WS has now been submitted to court and to CST Law. I had until 2pm today.

lurpdog101

@Coupon-mad just as an aside, on the email from CST Law with their WS, the legal aid has stated the below:

"I write in relation to the above matter on behalf of our Client, MET Parking Services Limited."

I will raise that I have no idea who MET Parking Services Limited is, as I thought they were Ocean Parking, an operating name of Anchor Security Services....no mention anywhere of MET Parking Services....so which one is it that they decided to trade under today?!!

Coupon-mad

Hahahaha!

That's a copy & paste typo (MET are completely unrelated) and you must raise that as part of your preliminary matters. It's the wrong company!

Say that the accuracy and applicability of the entire WS is in disrepute and the document is meaningless and should be dismissed.

lurpdog101

Coupon-mad said:

Hahahaha!

That's a copy & paste typo (MET are completely unrelated) and you must raise that as part of your preliminary matters. It's the wrong company!

Say that the accuracy and applicability of the entire WS is in disrepute and the document is meaningless and should be dismissed.

Awesome - well yes, I guess if they cannot even get that right and it is an official email too. haha. I will note that down for preliminary matters, although I don't have any others....need to read more on here to figure out what I do when I get to court in November! I have delivered paper copies to court as well as emailed them and had auto-receipt.

Coupon-mad

Surely you have a preliminary matter to raise using Chan and Akande? POC are incoherent and fail Part 16.  Unless the POC were good?

lurpdog101

Coupon-mad said:

Surely you have a preliminary matter to raise using Chan and Akande? POC are incoherent abd fail Part 16.  Unless the POC were good?

I did state that the POC was not clear and I did not know how many were being chased as did not clarify...I did not use a case study though. I have handed it all in now too....or is the preliminary thing something different?

Now I feel panicky as not done it right!!