Review my defence. I won! Another one bites the dust!

Fruitcake

The judge in the Jopson case didn't define the length of time, but did refer to changing a wheel, which for most people is not a two-minute job.

The Jopson case may or may not help if you include it, but I guarantee it will not help if you don't include it. Why not let the judge decide?

Akan100

Coupon-mad said:

Ok, but the one I said is easy to copy from. It's right there in the NEWBIES thread. On a laptop, control & f and the word 'Odeon' finds it in a split second (but use the Template Defence mainly).

Thanks for that but i am still not sure it will help because my defence is that I didn't go into the shop because I didn't feel well enough to shop after having a vaccine so the location of the number plate entering device (ipad) is not relevant

Akan100

Fruitcake said:

The judge in the Jopson case didn't define the length of time, but did refer to changing a wheel, which for most people is not a two-minute job.

The Jopson case may or may not help if you include it, but I guarantee it will not help if you don't include it. Why not let the judge decide?

Thats's a good points, thanks i will add it

Coupon-mad

Akan100 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ok, but the one I said is easy to copy from. It's right there in the NEWBIES thread. On a laptop, control & f and the word 'Odeon' finds it in a split second (but use the Template Defence mainly).

Thanks for that but i am still not sure it will help because my defence is that I didn't go into the shop because I didn't feel well enough to shop after having a vaccine so the location of the number plate entering device (ipad) is not relevant

It is. It really is...

Reword it that the signs about the need to input your VRM were not prominent and had you known, despite feeling ill you would certainly have popped in to buy refreshments and input your VRM.  At no point did you see any signs that said you were instead agreeing to pay £100, which would have been an absurd transactional decision and did not happen.

Refer to Vine v Waltham Forest as a similar case authority.  Search the forum for Miss Vine sign.

Akan100

My court hearing is imminent. I've read that I must prepare questions for the claimant's rep, what kind of questions should I ask, and is there a thread with examples, I searched but I couldn't find one.

I've received the claimant's evidence and since have thought of a few new defences that were obviously not mentioned in my defence or witness statement. Would the judge allow me to use them in defence?

Fruitcake

You can refute anything mentioned by the claimant in their witness statement.

You can bring up any unfair contract terms even if you didn't mention them in your defence by referring the judge to Section 71 para 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

(2)     The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it.

Section 69 of the same Act may also be useful.

Le_Kirk

Akan100 said:

My court hearing is imminent. I've read that I must prepare questions for the claimant's rep, what kind of questions should I ask, and is there a thread with examples, I searched but I couldn't find one.

I've received the claimant's evidence and since have thought of a few new defences that were obviously not mentioned in my defence or witness statement. Would the judge allow me to use them in defence?

You cannot use any new defence points.

1505grandad

"......not mentioned in my defence or witness statement."

When you filed your witness statement at the local court and a copy served on the claimant a few weeks ago which forum example did you use?  -  you do not appear to have made a post for critique.

Akan100

I won!

The judge said that it wasn't a formal hearing and kept repeating that. Not sure what that meant but after the claimant's solicitor finished, the judge asked me to say what I have to say very briefly. I had prepared 6 points to talk about but I felt so hurried I just cut to the main point which was that the there was no evidence that the sign said to enter the registration number. the judge then began to flip through all of the stock images of the signs that the claimant included and after reading everything on the signs even the tiniest font on the sign he still couldn't find it. The claimant tried to turn it into something else about how so many people had seen the sign that day but the judge said list of people who have seen it does not include the list of everyone who hasn't seen it so he dismissed that pretty quickly. The PCN and the claimant's witness statement both said that I got the PCN because I parked while failing to enter my registration number so it was hard for the claimant to wiggle out of it when the judge didn't find that text on the sign. The judge reminded him that these PCN were based on the contract on the sign and without that there was no breach of contract.

In the end the claimant agreed and the judge dismissed it and awarded me half day costs of £50 but only after I asked for it.

The thing that I found interesting is when the they couldn't find this text in the sign the judge said to the claimants solicitor "It's going to have to be struck off" and the solicitor said "do you mean dismissed, because if you strike it off it can come back" and then the judge said he will dismiss it. I found it interesting that the solicitor was  now helping me, I was suspicious especially after he called me a liar in his introduction but I didn't know what was going on and didn't say anything.

As for costs, I told the judge that I spent time researching and it caused me distress. The judge asked me how much I earn, how far i live etc then asked the claimant "what do you think?" the claimant replied, that distress is not something I can claim for, and I can't claim for my time because he did not see any evidence of that. I told him I have a payslip but he told the judge that he didn't see any evidence in my witness statement bundle. In the end the judge said he can only award me the £95 but its still early in the day and asked the solicitor again "what to you think" the solicitor said £50 is right and the judge award me £50. I'm confused why the judge kept asking the claimant solicitor for his opinion maybe he was he was trying to teach him how be a judge in the future lol i don't know.

Either way I felt like the judge was fair but did not give me the benefit of being a lay person as far as legal matters and was not impressed by the "template" defence and cut me no slack at all but when he didn't find the evidence of the sign in the claimant's bundle he latched on to that until the end.

Thanks for everyone who helped me and others and I wish everyone else the best of luck.

Coupon-mad

Haha, well done!

I've seen a few hearings where the Judge relies on the solicitor (sometimes a qualified barrister) to give them a steer.  It's because the legal rep's first duty is to the court.

So, whilst they are there for their client, they have an overriding duty first and foremost, to assist the court/Judge. 

Bet you were buzzing afterwards!

Very good news!  You beat Euro Parking Services.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

One favour please:

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens - anticipated in a few weeks...

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers!

You have a personal story to tell about the culture of getting a roboclaim 'legal' firm to add a pointless £70 for their own profit, to be let loose to intimidate people.

Tell the government how this affected your mental health and that if the parking firm had simply wanted £20 and sent a simple non-aggressive reminder, you'd probably have paid it.

I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this level of charge and threat from happening again.