Berkeley centre Sheffield

Coupon-mad

Just to be clear what you 2 are saying, the judge passes judgement - the claimant asks to appeal -  the Judge refuses - the claimant goes over the Judges head and gets an appeal? I wonder why they didn't with Judge Jackson, not so much the value of the claim but the precedent it leaves available?

Because it's not a precedent.  It's just another County Court Decision.

They lose thousands of cases. Only need to appeal one.

People have won appeals too so it works the other way:

Excel v Smith
Jopson v HomeGuard
Excel v Ambler

and one more case, won a good few years ago by @lamilad as a lay rep in front of HHJ Saffman about residential car parks where the lease had a term 'exclusive use'.  Never had a transcript for that one though.

B789

1505grandad said:

"...they will keep coming back until we are down on the canvas."

Well at least I agree with one statement by G.O. discussed in another thread:-

"Finally, we’ve got to ask – what’s your favourite motivational quote?

When you get knocked down, you’ve got to get back up again."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gary-osner-qa-powered-parkmaven-lydia-woodward-1c

Sorry, I had to get a new keyboard, after throwing up over the old one, after reading that luvvy-duvvy interview.

Perhaps the eejit should consider his "motivational quote" if the situation was as below but with a real car:

Albert_Arkwright

We think we have done as much as we can with the defence, could probably change it on our own a thousand more times but you have to stop somewhere, arguing with ourselves about points is sending us around the twist and alcohol consumption through the roof. We will leave it while tomorrow to send, give you guys a chance to pull it apart.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ap60vw3d7poh1e8o7ye5k/20230808-Court-defence-redacted.odt?rlkey=6m47fuj4xpoa4hofpdzxwjd9d&dl=0

Coupon-mad

You haven't used the Template Defence.  13 onwards reads like something taken from a Witness Statement and isn't up to date, which is why we have a Template Defence sticky thread.

12 would read better as:

12.  It must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  At best, the contract was frustrated by the Claimant's own system malfunction, not by any conduct of the driver, thus there was no breach of any 'relevant obligation' and the claim cannot get off the ground.

Albert_Arkwright

Coupon-mad

Your para 30 the discontinuance bit, could we perhaps put some more meat on that bone ? (in the legally sounding way you do), it seems to be the business model of the ppc's to 'play chicken' with people they are claiming from. At £35 court, dvla charge and a few letters, if only about 30%  bottle it and pay full £170, it is very financially fruitful, defendant awarded cost to 'deprofitise' the misuse of the court in this way, ( I know it's not a real word but just can't put it so it sounds right without it sounding like a penalty charge - on a previous post re claiming cost after discontinuance, you said 'the Claimant cannot just run away the week before the final hearing and expect relief from sanctions' ?).
This also may be a place to reiterate the IA. 5.19  'the industries argument', 'they need the extra charge to fund the unsuccessful claims' (really meaning 'to make sure still making millions of profit despite some small losses'), which include those they discontinue as they never really had a case in the first place, just 'trying it on' with scare tactics to great financial reward.

Out of all the people I know (don't have many friends tbh) 2 didn't pay initially as genuinely considered it wrong, but bottled out when court papers came and paid up. I don't personally know anybody else who stuck it out to court, i'll bet it's a lot more than 30% in reality.

Coupon-mad

Your para 30 the discontinuance bit, could we perhaps put some more meat on that bone ?

You mean in your case? Yes you can add whatever you like; it's your defence.

90% of small court claims result in no defence at all so they get 90% full amount CCJs.  A tiny percentage defend.  The rest pay.

Albert_Arkwright

Just received 'notice of change of legal representative', excel will now be representing themselves in court. They perhaps consider the defendant easy meat and not worthy of a professional lawyer. 
Does it happen often?
Something I am not sure about, the letter/ form was dated 30/8 although I only received it today, it is before I posted the DQ to their solicitors (4/9). Can they now say I never sent them a copy as per court procedures, should I now send a copy to EXCEL? I wouldn't mind if they would accept email.

B789

Albert_Arkwright said:

Just received 'notice of change of legal representative', excel will now be representing themselves in court. They perhaps consider the defendant easy meat and not worthy of a professional lawyer. 
Does it happen often?

Always.      

Coupon-mad

Read any other Excel or VCS case. Fully expected. Search the forum for Elms Legal.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Read any other Excel or VCS case. Fully expected. Search the forum for Elms Legal.

I think it's because nobody at Excel/VCS is legally qualified to sign the court claim; so they can't claim the £50.