Backcester Lane and Gresley Row, Lichfield (Excel)

Snakes_Belly

The first case from the FB group was listed this week after being rescheduled. It has been re-listed yet again the reason being that the Elms representative had not received the WS from Excel. This was the updated witness statement that contained the scathing comments by Michael Fabricant MP for Lichfield.  

The judge evidenced that the WS had been sent to Excel and commented that it was important that the articles contained in the amended WS were included in the WS. She appears to have considered the MP's comments of relevance.  This is something to bear in mind for the ongoing cases on this forum. 

It's possible also the the Claimant's representative may object to the articles forming part of the WS and ask for them to be disallowed. Excel's rep tried that one on me when I included articles about the Keighley car park.  
  

Ed2022

Thanks for the update @Snakes_Belly .
Is there a legal presence for this or that fact it is a public interest issue?

Snakes_Belly

Ed2022 said:

Thanks for the update @Snakes_Belly .
Is there a legal presence for this or that fact it is a public interest issue?

On this forum there have been numerous incidents when Excel and VCS have said that they have not received documents etc. So make sure that they have them before the hearing.

The comments by Michael Fabricant are quite powerful and I can imagine that Excel would not want these used as evidence. The judge in the case this week thought that the new evidence was relevant however the rep had not received it. This is typical Excel.

In my hearing Excel was the Claimant but the PCN was from a car park at Burton on Trent. I used an article that related to Excel being kicked off a car park at Keighley. The representative wanted this to be disallowed.   

Ed2022

Absolute disgrace they are wasting the court systems time.