Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

KeithP

Harvez63 said:

BWL sent an offer of a 25% reduction today and even offered £30 a month instalments. I’m sure they will use this against me in court to make out like they’ve tried 

Wasn't that a 'without prejudice' offer?
If so, they cannot mention it in court.

Coupon-mad

Did you notice what @Castle spotted?

Harvez63

KeithP said:

Harvez63 said:

BWL sent an offer of a 25% reduction today and even offered £30 a month instalments. I’m sure they will use this against me in court to make out like they’ve tried 

Wasn't that a 'without prejudice' offer?
If so, they cannot mention it in court.

Oh I didn't know thats what it meant. Is that the same for the consent order for the CCJ that I cannot mention they signed and admitted fault? maybe I should research the meaning of 'without prejudice'

Coupon-mad said:

Did you notice what @Castle spotted?

I did, was also a good spot. The photo clearly wasn't taken at the same time as the others which means there's no evidence to support 2 positions of the signs, and I believe its to mislead. IF I get to talk. It also casts doubt on their sign mark up which I think has to be a big win. After all, this case is about signage right?

Harvez63

Something I wanted to check, within BWL Skelly they had this

11. The Defendant again quotes a number of paragraphs from the lengthy Supreme Court judgment of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, scattered throughout the Defence, withlittle or no application of those paragraphs to the facts of this claim. For example, after summarising the Supreme Court's findings at various paragraphs, the Defendant simply says "this claim must fail" and "In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis."; the Defendant has not applied the facts of this case to Beavis to enablethese conclusions to be arrived at, and upon cross examination, is unlikely to be able to do so.

Do I need to learn the ParkingEye V Beavis UKS67 or have they just stuck that in there to a) wind me up b) to waste my time?

I'm confidence on the case now with the evidence, its just these little bits to prepare a response (if required)

Coupon-mad

They are winding you up.

It's easy to be able to explain why Beavis is distinguished from your case:

SIGNAGE!

Jenni_D

Exactly. In Beavis the signage was clear and unequivocal (as opposed to the signage in this case).

Plus their Lordships asserted (and PE agreed) that the £85 PCN value covered all costs of doing business (hence no additional debt recovery costs added).

 

Harvez63

Thank you ladies. So I dont need to learn it chapter and verse 

I've been watching a lot of court cases on YouTube in the last year (most days) and actually find it beneficial to learn the art of leading someone somewhere, and also when they are deliberately winding the opposition up - so hopefully I'm wise to it now. I'm not saying I think I'm a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, or aspirations of being one!! I just know going in before educating myself, they'd probably wound me up and I'd bite back improperly 

Harvez63

Is it worth me putting up my crib sheet on here? or risky they might read it and prepare against?

Coupon-mad

No worries but you crib sheet should be a concise aide memoire for you, not one that works for us!

Harvez63

I guess its more to make sure I'm arguing the right points. I'll post something later actually and come back to this.

I think I've found a third argument to using their own evidence, again, hoping I wont need to go this far but just incase, and I think the previously discussed photo is damning to their own evidence enough. 

Claimants Evidence July 13th


MY evidence - Jul 2017, signs not there

May 2018 - Signs have moved, now to top of wall and reduced to 3No

Is there further case here to show the signs have been changed again in less then 12 months and when exactly did that change happen? because the incident happened in December.

I'm a little bit 50/50 on this one as I could make it look like they've been there 2017 and 2018, just in 2018 they've moved up?

BTW the above also disproves another sign was missing, and that was the one to the subway wall. Basically I think I can throw enough doubt towards the judges that the signs a) constantly move and reduce/multiple b) there's no proof what was on site in December 2017 

Its so frustrating, I bloody know they wasn't in place or me or the wife would have clearly seen them! Annoying they happened to take photos in July and so did google maps, both showing something very different. I'm really suspect of their dated pictures to if I'm honest; knowing what crooks they are