County Court Letter

YankeeBrit

@Peach321, are you telling us you `9or your dad) submitted an N244 and paid £108 in order to amend your defence? If not, what you have shown us (despite a few errors) will not be accepted by the court.

Peach321

YankeeBrit said:

@Peach321, are you telling us you `9or your dad) submitted an N244 and paid £108 in order to amend your defence? If not, what you have shown us (despite a few errors) will not be accepted by the court.

I haven't submitted an N244 form yet, as i understand from you if i dont submit a new defense i will lose the claim.

Coupon-mad

I don't understand what you mean. It's not your defence and if Dad qualifies for a fee-free application to amend his defence, there's no dilemma.

He just applies now.  He has to apply for permission to amend his defence.

Peach321

i have been give a court date of 14th May, the claimant has submitted there witness statement and told the court they will not be attending.

I have attached there witness statement


https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgVKh-nCEGjqgelmmvV_kPdP1oxc1g

Coupon-mad

Peach321 said:

i have been give a court date of 14th May, the claimant has submitted there witness statement and told the court they will not be attending.

I have attached there witness statement

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgVKh-nCEGjqgelmmvV_kPdP1oxc1g

And where's Dad's WS bundle for us to check?  You know what happens when from the NEWBIES thread and should have had his WS and exhibits drafted for months.

What's the deadline for WS on the Hearing Order?

Did Dad amend his defence fee-free as recommended?

nopcns

Interesting... in the claimants WS, para 29(v) they state that they are charging interest at 8%. However, if you look at the PoC, they are claiming interest at 10.25% (which is not allowed). Both are signed under a statement of truth.

This must be highlighted at court because one or the other is not truthful.

The signatory to the contract on behalf of the client is not identified and therefore it is not known under what authority they signed it. Additionally, there is no mention in the contract of any length of time that the contract is valid. Whilst it mentions the start date, there is no term within the contract to indicate a valid period. If it was intended to in perpetuity (unless agreed in writing to cancel) then it should state that.

There is no mention in the signs shown that an additional £70 would be added to the original £100 charge. In the WS, it does not break down that additional £70 except to infer that it has cost them that much, if not more to revoker the unpaid charge. It must be pointed out that the recent DLUHC Impact Assessment showed that the average cost of debt recovery was less than £9. Also, point out that in the Beavis case, the judgment stated that a parking charge of £85 was more than enough for a PPC to run its business and recover all its costs AND still make a tidy profit.

I don't know if the OP applied to amend their original feeble defence made through MCOL but at least the points raised above based on the Claimants WS, should help steer the judge towards the obvious unreasonable behaviour of the claimant.

Castle

nopcns said:

Interesting... in the claimants WS, para 29(v) they state that they are charging interest at 8%. However, if you look at the PoC, they are claiming interest at 10.25% (which is not allowed). Both are signed under a statement of truth.

This must be highlighted at court because one or the other is not truthful.

The signatory to the contract on behalf of the client is not identified and therefore it is not known under what authority they signed it. Additionally, there is no mention in the contract of any length of time that the contract is valid. Whilst it mentions the start date, there is no term within the contract to indicate a valid period. If it was intended to in perpetuity (unless agreed in writing to cancel) then it should state that.

More importantly it was apparently signed in the name of "Premier Parking Logistics" in December 2018.

At that date, both Premier Parking Logistics Ltd and Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd were dormant and therefore, any contract could only had been signed between Mr Wilkins (personally as a Sole Trader trading as "Premier Parking Logistics") and the mysterious client.

Peach321

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgVKh-nCEGjqgelpsFIyYFxX8Z_ZDg

Coupon-mad

I had a quick look and you have 7 exhibits but early on, you say:

" In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits xx01-xx06)"

Then after paragraph 5 you revert to paragraph 1 again and mention Chan but you've not referred to it by its exhibit there.  It should be exhibit 1 if you are mentioning Chan first.  Exhibits should if course be in order of where you mention them in the WS.

Did you include @Castle's really important point?  I missed it if so.

1505grandad

Also make sure you have all the usual relevant info required in the heading including correct name of claimant.