LBC advice for driver who 'possibly accepted guilt'

kensiko

Thanks so much for the effort you put into answering these questions CM, it is massively appreciated.  Always points people in the right direction to research.

You asked "Did you attach a breakdown of how much their actions cost you - and proof - e.g. the default judgment and a receipt for paying it off?"

The claimant LBC didn't actually attach a breakdown or provide proof but this explains the exact amount that was paid that the claimant wanted refunded.  The proof of payment is obviously easy to find and that will be taken to the hearing.
"The total claim will be no less than £500 plus court fees.  There will be no more notice given.  
This claim is for the money incorrectly paid (£286.52), plus damages for breaches of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Data Protection Act 2018 and associated GDPR.

In the alternative, the matter will be settled if ZZPS apologise in writing and refund all the money paid in full (£286.52) forthwith."

All the notes above will be taken to the hearing but a general question about that.  Can you reply to a WS with further documentation so the judge may have time to read everything before the hearing rather than doing the arguing on the day?  There is still time left to file documents but I am unsure if you can file more arguments to counter a WS already filed after already filing the claimant WS.  Or is it just best to keep certain things back, ready for the arguments at the hearing?

nopcns

It's interesting that, as a signed statement of truth, the defendant, in their summary, make claims that cannot be known such as in #43, #44 and #45.

As an individual making a debt claim, only 14 days are required under Practice Direction, Pre Action Conduct 6(b) here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct. So it is embarrassing that a supposedly legally qualified witness gets it wrong in #48.

kensiko

nopcns said:

It's interesting that, as a signed statement of truth, the defendant, in their summary, make claims that cannot be known such as in #43, #44 and #45.

As an individual making a debt claim, only 14 days are required under Practice Direction, Pre Action Conduct 6(b) here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct. So it is embarrassing that a supposedly legally qualified witness gets it wrong in #48.

Thanks for mentioning claims that cannot be known, its a very good point!

Regarding the PAP claims, this is the part I did find the most confusing.  As I mentioned on my first read through:
"Paragraph 30.  Stating LBC letters did not meet requirements because they have an 18 day turnaround time?  Not sure if this is a joke or not.  The 2 letters sent to them were 14 days apart as per PAP.  Still never received a reply to any of them (or the one after mediation)."

Coupon-mad

If you haven't provided receipt evidence of your loss their misleading words caused (by making you take a transactional decision you would not otherwise have done) send a short Supplementary WS just attaching that proof.

nopcns

Their turnaround time is of no concern to you. You were required to give them 14 days notice according to PAP and you did. They are scrambling a bit by the look of it.

However, if this does reach a hearing, you must raise all these points to show their unreasonable behaviour. You can, if there's still time, submit a SWS rebutting their WS and ask the court to throw out their defence/WS if the Statement of Truth can be shown to be anything but that.

kensiko

Thanks so much for all your help and support!!
I just made the deadline for filing documents so this has been sent and copied to ZZPS.

It won't be perfect so go easy on me as it was a bit rushed and I would have preferred feedback first but I wanted it all filed so there is less to remember to include at the hearing.




Hopefully nothing majorly wrong in there, but feel better now just in case I am unable to be at the hearing for the claimant to help.

Coupon-mad

As long as it was signed & dated under a statement of truth, nicely done.

kensiko

Coupon-mad said:

As long as it was signed & dated under a statement of truth, nicely done.

It certainly was.  I only showed the interesting pages but the next one was the signature page.

Will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of weeks.
Will they contact the claimant?
Will they turn up to the hearing (bearing in mind it's not exactly close to them)?

I am in completely new territory now.

KeithP

kensiko said:

Will they turn up to the hearing (bearing in mind it's not exactly close to them)?

The Claimant will send a local advocate to represent them.

Coupon-mad

They will probably send a barrister, knowing ZZPS and their mates at QDR.

You will need to know your legal basis inside out.  Did you check out the Data Principles (and found them at the bottom of the 2020 BPA Code)?  I wasn't just talking about fair processing. One of the Principles is about accuracy.  Read what the ICO says or other articles about those principles.

Then there is the CPUTRS and 'misleading information'.  And you'd need to Google to understand the fact that a consumer (due to an update a few years ago I think) has a remedy under the CPUTRS which are no longer only enforced by Trading Standards.