Minster Baywatch Ltd Claim Issued through Gladstones Solicitors LTD - CASE DISMISSED!!

Coupon-mad

If it's their second witness statement that appends that weird landowner agreement and talks about Mecca Bingo (which you have made some very good points about it being the wrong parties) then I would NOT object at the hearing to that WS!

Instead I'd tear it apart when it is your turn to speak!

I would also be saying about the signs:

(a). A driver cannot read the terms on this wordy sign which is nothing like the simple and prominent terms on the ParkingEye v Beavis sign;

but anyway

(b). what is readable - in large lettering (top right of the sign) - is the fact that the alleged contract is offered by a completely different legal entity: Bransby Wilson.

It is (at best) ambiguous, and there appears to be nothing on the signs that establishes that the contract was in fact offered by Minster Baywatch in their own right, as opposed to agents offering it 'on behalf of' the named Principal, Bransby Wilson.

Minster Baywatch surely appear only to be an agent, without the standing or right to sue.  This is 'trite law' in cases where the Principal is disclosed on a contract. There must be certainty regarding who a person is allegedly contracting with, otherwise agents and their principals could line up and take turns to separately sue consumers for damages flowing from the same parking event.

Yanness

Coupon-mad said:

If it's their second witness statement that appends that weird landowner agreement and talks about Mecca Bingo (which you have made some very good points about it being the wrong parties) then I would NOT object at the hearing to that WS!

Instead I'd tear it apart when it is your turn to speak!

I would also be saying about the signs:

(a). A driver cannot read the terms on this wordy sign which is nothing like the simple and prominent terms on the ParkingEye v Beavis sign;

but anyway

(b). what is readable - in large lettering (top right of the sign) - is the fact that the alleged contract is offered by a completely different legal entity: Bransby Wilson.

It is (at best) ambiguous, and there appears to be nothing on the signs that establishes that the contract was in fact offered by Minster Baywatch in their own right, as opposed to agents offering it 'on behalf of' the named Principal, Bransby Wilson.

Minster Baywatch surely appear only to be an agent, without the standing or right to sue.  This is 'trite law' in cases where the Principal is disclosed on a contract. There must be certainty regarding who a person is allegedly contracting with, otherwise agents and their principals could line up and take turns to separately sue consumers for damages flowing from the same parking event.

Right on the money👍👍👍.

How can I counteract their other arguments? Which are mostly from the second witness statement:

points like the Prejudice, the Similarity to Beavis (which I still don't understand why is it important) and the additional costs points? 

From statistic, what are the points that make you win in the Court?

Coupon-mad

"Signage" is the most common point that wins.

You can understand why Beavis is important: it's from the TOP COURT in the UK, so all cases can be compared to it.

The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case said that there could be a valid parking charge clause, if the signs were in large text (clear, uncomplicated & prominent) so that who is offering the contract and what is required of drivers is very clear, including at the entrance.

Every case sign should be compared to the Beavis yellow sign - search Google images to look at it - you'll see why I said you should say:

 "this wordy sign which is nothing like the simple and prominent terms on the ParkingEye v Beavis sign".

Also your second point:

"Wrong Claimant" (because there is a disclosed Principal in the sign) should win every time because it's trite law (unarguable) and Judges like it!  I won a case in February on that exact point.

None of the rest of their rubbish needed any comment!  It's template garbage.

Yanness

Are they any recent victories against Gladstone that can help me out?

I saw in the crib sheet link in newbies, it was mentioned that the witness statement was not signed by the car park company (mine being Minster Baywatch) but by a Gladstone representative. Is it a good point to mention or it isn't really relevant?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6075943/claim-form-uk-car-park-management-gladstone/p21

How can I ensure the two witnesses writing the witness statements are real and not fake?
They are Aleksandra Pieniek, 1st witness and Chloe O'Neil 2nd witness both legal assistants of Gladstone.
Ooops is it wrong to mention their names... 😂?

The signatures and the names of the parties signing the agreement between the Minster Baywatch and the landlord was blacked out. Is it something they should have not hide for court document? 

Coupon-mad

The signatures and the names of the parties signing the agreement between the Minster Baywatch and the landlord was blacked out. Is it something they should have not hide for court document? 

You are right.

Here's how to argue both that important point about redacted contracts and the Fairlie v Fenton trite law point. that says the contract principal is Bransby Wilson (as the signs identify) not MB:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6455080/court-report-case-won-on-fairlie-v-fenton-and-hancock-v-promontoria#latest

Yanness

Can I actually bring a laptop with all the different cases downloaded instead of having a large number of prints and paperwork? 

Coupon-mad

Yes as long as you ask the usher when you arrive if this is OK - and do not assume you will be near enough to a plug point to charge it.

Don't go into a side room with the other side's rep.  Just say 'see you in the Judge's room'.

Call the Judge 'judge'. Not Sir/Madam any more.

Yanness

Do judges read cases beforehand or do we have to explain everything from the beginning to the end like our main points, then the points we copied for the witness statement?

Because I have a bad memory and I will just read from my notes if that's OK? 

Umkomaas

Yanness said:

Do judges read cases beforehand or do we have to explain everything from the beginning to the end like our main points, then the points we copied for the witness statement?

Because I have a bad memory and I will just read from my notes if that's OK? 

They read the submitted papers before the hearing, but given the forests that are produced by the Claimant and Defendant, often running into hundreds of pages, skim -reading inevitably occurs.  But you can be sure that the Judge will have some understanding of the case, he/she might ask for clarification from both sides if there is anything needing further explanation. You need to make sure you have the important points of your case on a crib sheet to bring to the Judge's attention should you feel he/she has skipped over any of them. 

Yanness

CASE DISMISSED, concluded by DDJ Offen.

No cost for either parties.
No appeal allowed.