County Court Claim from Watford in Aug 19 - need to file a defence TODAY!

ripofflondon

I probably haven't given this the attention it needed.  A feeling of resentment at having been put in this position I suppose.  

I can post their WS if needs be - they did include dated photos of the car and the signage albeit the PCN was issued on 19/9/19 when the parking took place on 17/9/19.  

But what should the crib sheet of notes say?  

Coupon-mad

I said already what it should say about their evidence.  Please don't post it here.  You are the expert about your own case so no doubt you can highlight their errors & omissions.

You can't add or bring new evidence but you might be allowed to speak.

Cross your fingers the other side do not turn up or that your hearing gets postponed due to lack of Judges.  It happens!

ripofflondon

Thanks a lot Umkomaas -  Yet another UKPC / DCB Legal LTD - WS Bundle - Page 15 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Have downloaded this WS and will study it closely in the hope I am allowed to speak (I would have hoped I would be if the case is against me!)

I will be away from my PC for a couple of hours, but will any of you be online later this PM / tmw AM?  For eg, will I be asked / expected to say anything about the case law etc quoted in my template defence?  

Coupon-mad

You'd be better off studying the one I wrote yesterday that includes the Government's new analysis which exposes that the added 'debt fees' on the claim are eight times what pre-action stage really costs - and clearly double recovery.

The Government is trying to flush this out in their Call for Evidence but it seems that the legal representative keeps the money and it's certainly not a core price for parking.

This add-on is an abuse because they already claim the supposedly capped £50 'legal fees' allowed by the court (covers already, any legal work in contemplation of litigation such as a template LBC).

So what is the fake added extra fee for?  Why are claims inflated by a fee already claimed and capped?  It is duplication.

Read the example WS that I wrote in a reply on the Template Defence thread yesterday and read the DHLUHC's Draft Impact Assessment that referred to their intervention as addressing 'market failure':

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

The point is that this was only published 2 days ago (Sunday) so could not have been raised by you earlier, and the Government's analysis includes (the stuff in my WS example that blows apart any semblance of justification for the added £60 or £70 per PCN that inflate parking claims.

You will want your Judge to know this!

Finally read s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which places a STATUTORY DUTY on courts to consider the fairness (prominence, clarity, open dealing and generally the fairness of terms and notices) WHETHER A PARTY RAISES IT OR NOT.

It was in your defence if you used the Template Defence - re-read what your defence said about the CRA 2015 and 'fairness and clarity and prominence of terms and consumer notices'.

The Judge MUST consider that due to s71.  Even if you submitted no WS.

You are not the first BTW and people have won cases just based on a defence, if the Defendant is allowed to speak by a nice Judge and is good at pointing out the holes in the other side's evidence, lack of grace period, etc. 

ripofflondon

OK, coupon-mad.  Am having a read of what you've written.  

This may sound like a noddy question, but do I need to print out hard copies of my defence, your example WS on the Template Defence thread from yesterday,  DHLUHC's Draft Impact Assessment and S71 of the CRA?  

I don't think it's my fault I'm being sued, but it IS my fault for not preparing in time and so I give my thanks to you and the other forum-ites for not leaving me totally stranded in the middle of the Atlantic without a paddle!  

Le_Kirk

You posted on 1 August at 4:51PM that the hearing date is set for tomorrow Tues.  Well something is wrong because 1st August was Tuesday and if you think your hearing date is set for Tuesday, you have now missed it!  Did you mean Wednesday, in which case, I hope you are there now!

ripofflondon

Le_Kirk said:

Did you mean Wednesday, in which case, I hope you are there now!

You are absolutely right, Le Kirk - a typo and I meant Wed.

ripofflondon

Guess what - i WON!  

ripofflondon

Well I say 'won', but in actual fact following my attending the court in person today, only to find out that Gladstones had previously notified the court they would not be attending in person but hadn't informed me of this, the action was struck out under Civil Procedure Rule 27.9 (1) with c. £70 for travel and loss of earnings awarded in my favour. 

So I had the pleasure of sending Gladstones the following email:  

Dear Ms P** 

You will hear this from from the court in due course, but I wanted to be the first to inform you: following my attending the court in person today, only to find out that you had previously notified the court you would not be attending in person but hadn't informed me of this, the action was struck out under Civil Procedure Rule 27.9 (1) with travel and loss of earnings awarded in my favour. 

I look forward to receiving my costs in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Mark I**

ripofflondon

When I arrived, the usher first said the other side hadn't arrived and I thought 'OK, they're running late'.   Then 2 mins later she came back and said 'they've advised the court they won't be attending'.  I was shocked to hear this and she said 'oh, it's quite common with these private parking companies'.  

I explained to the judge that I wasn't legally trained and didn't realise until too late about the WS.  He homed in in great detail on the correspondence I'd had (and not had) from Gladstones and the issue of how they'd told the court they wouldn't be attending in person but hadn't told me, wanting to see the emails on my phone and it was clear that because of this alone he was going to strike the action out.  

I was one of the lucky ones in that Gladstones shot themselves in the foot and obviously not everyone will be this lucky, so thinking that it might be of use to those of you who are still facing upcoming hearings I did ask the judge 'how would it have gone if it had gone to a substantive hearing on the merits?' and he wouldn't be drawn on this except to say "I would have asked you in a lot more detail about the mention in your Defence of how you'd been challenged the week before and had been allowed to park for 5 mins when you said you were just going to the shop".  

Thanks again to all of you who helped.