CAPITAL CAR PARK CONTROL / DBL LEGAL COSTA COFFEE PCNs

Le_Kirk

If you have already submitted it along with your WS, you cannot change it (well not without a large fee) so just stand by it at the hearing, let your evidence do the talking. Claimants often say (in their template WS) that the defendant has used a template defence; just remind the court that one judge, when faced with that baloney from a claimant, said "so what?"  You couldsearch the forum for that!

Metaphysicist

Le_Kirk said:

If you have already submitted it along with your WS, you cannot change it (well not without a large fee) so just stand by it at the hearing, let your evidence do the talking. Claimants often say (in their template WS) that the defendant has used a template defence; just remind the court that one judge, when faced with that baloney from a claimant, said "so what?"  You couldsearch the forum for that!

Thanks I will search the forum for further help. 

Fruitcake

With regards to the redacted contract, you should have a look at this thread where the judge stated that it is unreasonable to redact the terms of a contract being relied upon as evidence. This was an appeal case so is persuasive on the lower courts, and you definitely bring it up at your hearing.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

The contract in your case has the signatories and the name of the alleged landowner redacted, so there is no proof that is was signed by the landowner.

I suggest you also familiarise yourself with sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short, but the basics are that they define who must sign a contract or documents for them to be valid.

Without unredacted signatories, there is no proof that the contract was signed by authorised signatories of both parties, ot indeed signed at all.

Metaphysicist

Fruitcake said:

With regards to the redacted contract, you should have a look at this thread where the judge stated that it is unreasonable to redact the terms of a contract being relied upon as evidence. This was an appeal case so is persuasive on the lower courts, and you definitely bring it up at your hearing.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

The contract in your case has the signatories and the name of the alleged landowner redacted, so there is no proof that is was signed by the landowner.

I suggest you also familiarise yourself with sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short, but the basics are that they define who must sign a contract or documents for them to be valid.

Without unredacted signatories, there is no proof that the contract was signed by authorised signatories of both parties, ot indeed signed at all.

Appreciate that and will certainly be looking at that. 

Regards

Coupon-mad

Surprising they haven't discontinued.

Metaphysicist

Coupon-mad said:

Surprising they haven't discontinued.

Was thinking the same. Court next week. 

Coupon-mad

Metaphysicist said:

Coupon-mad said:

Surprising they haven't discontinued.

Was thinking the same. Court next week. 

Phone up the local court on Monday and ask if it has been discontinued or is this hearing happening?  We've seen a number of cases where the Defendant wasn't told about a late discontinuance.

Metaphysicist

Coupon-mad said:

Metaphysicist said:

Coupon-mad said:

Surprising they haven't discontinued.

Was thinking the same. Court next week. 

Phone up the local court on Monday and ask if it has been discontinued or is this hearing happening?  We've seen a number of cases where the Defendant wasn't told about a late discontinuance.

Thanks will do. 

Metaphysicist

Hi guys,

I attended court today. The outcome was in favour of the claimant which I am very disappointed about! The claimant was seeking costs of £508.00 in breakdown 3 PCNs which was £300 plus admin and court fees of £208.00. Claimant was granted £323 as judge stated claimant could not prove their cost equals to the amount they are seeking. 

I would like some advice if I can appeal this decision using EX340. Reasons set out below to back my EX340.

1. Sitting Judge did not take into consideration that the land contract signatures was redacted, Judge simply said signatures being visible or not does not matter. This goes against Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907. 

2. Judge completely ignored the fact that after various complaints was made against Capital Carpark Control LTD issuing PCNs against Costa coffee customers that equated to the banners being placed that parking is free for Costa consumers. 

4. Judge ignored that there was an exact same case with very similar circumstances at the same location and the defendant won the case. Here is the link as its on the forum. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333653/parking-at-costa/p15

Any advice guys? I have 28 days before a CCJ is registered. 


Kind regards

Coupon-mad

You'd be better suing Costa Coffee for your loss, I think. Assuming they signed the contract (or was it a third party landowner)?