UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT

KeithP

IloveElephants said:

Le_Kirk said:

It is different; if you find a poster called @Grizebeck and look at his profile, you will find some discussions about the new N180 and suggestions for completing it.

Hi Le kirk, thanks for sharing that, I cannot find the specific thread you are referring to? Please share it with me. Thanks

Here's a list of all @Grizebeck's threads.
Are you really saying you can't work out which one is about New Questions on the N180 Form...

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

IloveElephants said:

Le_Kirk said:

It is different; if you find a poster called @Grizebeck and look at his profile, you will find some discussions about the new N180 and suggestions for completing it.

Hi Le kirk, thanks for sharing that, I cannot find the specific thread you are referring to? Please share it with me. Thanks

Here's a list of all @Grizebeck's threads.
See if you can work out which one is about New Questions on the N180 Form...

Thanks Keith

IloveElephants

Thanks for showing me the thread by Grizebeck.

As for this question,

• Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision? If No, please state why not.  - I TICKED NO (What shall I write in the Box? This case is too complex and requires a hearing to show the particulars?

Quote from Grizebeck: 

One thing i will add is that there is always an advantage of having a physical f2f hearing rather then a telephone/phone hearing
So there are various reasons you can give as to why you need a f2f hearing rather then any other type 

This is my reason, I would like to take my case in person for a f2f hearing, I pay taxes and its my right otherwise the system is unfit for purpose IMO. 

If anyone can help me reword this so I do not sound like I am insulting the "system"

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Why not just use the wording suggested in Grizebeck's thread. It's already written.

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just use the wording suggested in Grizebeck's thread. It's already written.

Thanks Coupon-mad

I will use what Grizebeck suggested

There is always an advantage of having a physical f2f hearing rather then a telephone/phone hearing
Face-to-face meetings minimise the risk of miscommunication compared to email or over the phone

Is this good enough?

Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

No. That's not the wording suggested in that thread.

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

No. That's not the wording suggested in that thread.

One thing i will add is that there is always an advantage of having a physical f2f hearing rather then a telephone/phone hearing
So there are various reasons you can give as to why you need a f2f hearing rather then any other type 


Hi Coupon-mad, is this the paragraph you are referring to? Many thanks

Coupon-mad

No it's not. You need to read the thread.

IloveElephants

HCoupon-mad said:

No. That's not the wording suggested in that thread.

Hi CouponMad

Is this the quote?

Thank you,

I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party.  I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and their agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.  

I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions. 

Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.

IloveElephants

IloveElephants said:

HCoupon-mad said:

No. That's not the wording suggested in that thread.

Hi CouponMad

Is this the quote?

Thank you,

I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party.  I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and their agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.  

I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions. 

Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.

Good morning.


I have edited the wording so it fits in the box.


The Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, to have this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an advantage as they would prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question. Years of Intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and agents. I need a voice at an attended hearing.  

Thank you