I missed n180 deadline, but so did claimant (UKPCL)

turtlemoose

Coupon-mad said:

THEN: the "exaggerated claim" and the "CRA breaches" bits remain in unchanged - is that correct?

Yes...unless you used the Template Defence and already had all that wording.  Don't repeat verbatim what was already in your defence.

I am then stuck on the part titled "The Beavis case is against this claim" - do I just delete this?

Why on earth would you delete that fundamental point that distinguishes your case from the leading Supreme Court judgment where the consumer lost?

I did use the template defence, so does that mean I should delete those parts this time around? Or put something different in?

Ref the Beavis part - so in Baz's WS, this is all tailored specifically to their experience (buying a ticket and the machine not inputting the reg correctly). Which is why I asked "do I just delete this or do I need to work something out to put in here?"    - is it that the concealed pitfall/trap in my instance is a) tiny writing on signs and b) they don't have cameras positioned to count/deduct time spent in drive thru from overall parking time? 

And the conclusion, does that stay as is?

Coupon-mad

 is it that the concealed pitfall/trap in my instance is a) tiny writing on signs and b) they don't have cameras positioned to count/deduct time spent in drive thru from overall parking time?

Yes.

Go & open your defence and compare it to the draft WS you've done, and delete whole paragraph chunks, if they are verbatim repetition.  Or re-word them.

turtlemoose

Thank you. WS amended as per all advice in this thread, emailed to court and to QDR.

Next steps are being in front of the judge I suppose! Yikes. 

Le_Kirk

turtlemoose said:

Next steps are being in front of the judge I suppose! Yikes. 

Check out other threads that ask what it is like in the small claims court and check other threads where posters have reported their hearing.  Use the forum search facility with "AOBTD" or "another one bites the dust" without the speech marks, as your search term. Change "Best Match" to "Newest".

turtlemoose

I had my dispute resolution today. QDR turned up and sent a baby solicitor. She seemed completely unprepared and just parrotted some set phrases rather than actually answering the judge's questions - he was not impressed by this. My WS defence items TLDR version is 1) signs bad 2) i spent time in the drive thru which is not 'parked' and they've not considered this (was 15 min over the 90 min allowed). 

I'll try to break it down as to what happened in order as best as possible.

1) Claimant tried to have my WS thrown out as submitted late (8 days before) as it should have been 14 days. The judge asked me why it was late - I said hand up that it absolutely my error, I thought it was 7 days but that is my mistake, the dispute resolution notification letter from the court didn't mention a timescale so I just presumed and that is completely my fault. I had taken a copy of that letter with me, and the judge asked to see it. After reading it, he agreed it did not list a timescale. He checked a different copy of it (ie not my one) and it was the same - he said there is a page missing with instructions on it, and it is not my fault that I didn't know due to an administration error of the court, and that a week is adequate time for a firm such as QDR to digest my WS in preparation for today, so my WS stands.

2) The judge asked the Claimant some questions that unfortunately I have forgotten, her answers were really hard to understand and I think they were just procedural stuff.

3) The judge looked at my WS and told the claimant I have raised the issue of signage - he looked at their WS and stated that the signs they've submitted as evidence of their clear signs on page X are not the same as the signs displayed in the photo of the car park in page Y. The claimant said "yes they are judge".     He repeated that they were not, she repeated that they were. They went back and forth FIVE TIMES on this, the judge clearly getting more exasperated as time went on. I was trying really hard not to smirk. In the end he told her we won't be discussing that any more at this point, those two signs are clearly not the same. 

4) He then referred to my defence in the WS that I spent an extraordinary amount of time in the drive thru due to it being lockdown, and that i went through it twice, and they have not taken this in to consideration - he asked if this was an accurate summary, and I said yes. He asked the claimant if it was their position that time spent in the drive-thru was time spent parked? She gave a politician's answer - she just blathered on but actually avoided coming down on yes or no. He asked her again, she did the same. He asked her for a third time, and this time she decided to rely on the wording of the contract which states "on the premises", and that the drive thru is considered to be "on the premises". 

5) at this point the judge mused aloud along the lines of "I wonder, if one were to attend McDonald's and enter the drive thru, to buy a burger or whatever it is one might buy there, that one would consider oneself to be parked while waiting in the queue for a service for which one has no control over the time taken to provide such service. I also wonder if one were to attend McDonald's, would it be reasonble for one to opt to park within the drive thru, if the drive thru is indeed considered part of the car park, and thus park in a way that obstructs the entry of other customers to the drive thru service."  He did not make a decision or statement either way about this, nor direct it at either of us particularly, it was very much in a 'thinking aloud' vibe.

6) He decided that there was not enough time to make the decision today and it will be rescheduled for a full hearing, at least 28 days from now and with an hour timeslot.

7) He then ended the dispute resolution and asked if both parties would consider meditation, as we were all present right there. He took the time to explain to me that if I entered in to mediation there, and offers were discussed but agreement not reached and it went to hearing anyway, that he would not be able to be the judge on that hearing as he might hear confidential discussions regarding the case. He then asked me if i would like to enter mediation - I declined and said that I feel my defence is valid, and that the only settlement I would accept is zero - so he said in that case we will proceed to a hearing.

8) I politely asked a clarification question about the process of going to hearing, he explained it patiently and clearly to me and checked I understood.

9) He then asked if either of us had anything else at this time - and the claimant, using lots of legalese, basically said "can we have the option that we can submit more evidence before the next hearing, if we want to?" and he asked her if she had any evidence in mind that was to be submitted - she avoided answering the question properly, in the same style as she had done so far for everything else, and he asked her a second time - she did it again. After this response he put his hand up and said "ok, well I'll make the decision for you, you haven't declared that you do have definite evidence you want to submit and so I'm deciding that neither party may submit further evidence." 

10) the end!



Now, I'm feeling REALLY confident about the hearing and feel like QDR shot themselves in the foot. I feel like the judge is as much on my side as he can be, and that his musing about parking in a drive thru was a helping hand in fleshing out my argument in my WS. 

I've shared this experience so far so that others dealing with QDR can read it, but also I'd love to hear the board guide's thoughts on how this went to day and if my gut feeling that I have a really good chance seems right!

UncleThomasCobley

It certainly reads well. That you for such an illuminating report of the proceedings.

Whilst it can never be certain how it will eventually go at the hearing, the judge certainly appears to have been satisfied with your arguments and the Claimants legal rep doesn't seem to have done themselves any favours with the judge. One question is whether QDR will field the same legal rep for the hearing?

If you had to rely on "gut feeling", this is going to be an exercise in humiliation for QDR and their clients.

Le_Kirk

Well done for putting forward such a good case, some interesting points about parking in a drive-thru (scuse the spelling!) by the judge - could use that in other similar cases.  Notwithstanding that, what an absolute waste of your time, why could the judge not have made a decision based on what they had heard!  Instead another hour of your and everybody else who was involved time at a later date.

UncleThomasCobley

Le_Kirk said:

Well done for putting forward such a good case, some interesting points about parking in a drive-thru (scuse the spelling!) by the judge - could use that in other similar cases.  Notwithstanding that, what an absolute waste of your time, why could the judge not have made a decision based on what they had heard!  Instead another hour of your and everybody else who was involved time at a later date.

Hopefully ending in QDR and their client begin even more out of pocket with an unreasonable behaviour costs addition.

patient_dream

Great read

The so called legal rep was a disaster, many are.
This has already cost QDR money, will they want to throw more money at what will be probably be a lost cause for them.

Both of you cannot provide more evidence , not that you need to as the Judge has set the scene for you. At a hearing you can ask questions and the Judge has given them to you

Prepare a crib sheet  for yourself so you don't foeget.

QDR would be stupid to continue  wasting even more money  and the risk of them losing is very high and then you can claim your costs. What legal would expose their client to this

Very common in the parking scam industry

turtlemoose

I feel like the drive thru thing really is the winner here.

If they say that being in a drive thru is NOT considered parking then my defence stands that they have not proven I've parked for more than 90 mins (especially when you consider the BPA 10 min grace period as well).

If they say that being in a drive thru IS parking and starts the 90 min clock ticking, then I think the judge will tear strips off them because it's absolute nonsense, in line with his comments today. 

Also, they did themselves over with the signage thing, putting the wrong ones in their own WS (hahaha), and that their bright daylight photos of their own signs just show that they're not readable from standing on the ground looking up - and I was there in the dark so even less visibility.