SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

1505grandad

"New Code of Practice (“COP”)

2.  .......Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability."

Is that actually in the Defence or a hangover from a template the claimant uses  -  the sort of thing the claimant whines about and accusing the D of using.

paddyposh

1505grandad said:

"New Code of Practice (“COP”)

2.  .......Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability."

Is that actually in the Defence or a hangover from a template the claimant uses  -  the sort of thing the claimant whines about and accusing the D of using.

I just checked my defence and no it is not mentioned anywhere. 

Having just checked for abbreviations, IPC is mentioned below only

Castle

OP
Please post up a copy of the Landowner's contract.

paddyposh

Castle said:

OP
Please post up a copy of the Landowner's contract.

Attached which was in their WS

paddyposh

Quite concerned as the WS isn't the place to argue against what they have put into their WS is it? To me however the signs are still extremely unclear as to where the restrictions are for, which I have already put in my draft of my WS along with more points I mentioned in my defence about poor signage and prohibited signage mentioning clamping (on pg11 here).

My WS also has some exhibits of cases thrown out due to the particulars of claim not adhering, though my PCN states the reason as no valid permit. Should they still be included (CEL vs Chan for example and Akande)?

Example in my WS I have written, but should this be removed? as they did state the term which was allegedly breached:

1.      I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

Castle

Para 1 of the "Landowner contract" confirms that Eagerstates Limited are not the landowner.

paddyposh

Castle said:

Para 1 of the "Landowner contract" confirms that Eagerstates Limited are not the landowner.

Yes which contradicts this piece from the WS:

1. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

In fact his company wasn't instructed by the landowner, as the landowner is not Eagerstates Limited - they are just a company working with the actual landowner? But it does state they have authority from the landowner (i'm not a legal beagle, just noticed that wording)

Castle

paddyposh said:

Castle said:

Para 1 of the "Landowner contract" confirms that Eagerstates Limited are not the landowner.

Yes which contradicts this piece from the WS:

1. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

In fact his company wasn't instructed by the landowner, as the landowner is not Eagerstates Limited - they are just a company working with the actual landowner? But it does state they have authority from the landowner (i'm not a legal beagle, just noticed that wording)

Which, without evidence, is just "heresay".

paddyposh

Castle said:

paddyposh said:

Castle said:

Para 1 of the "Landowner contract" confirms that Eagerstates Limited are not the landowner.

Yes which contradicts this piece from the WS:

1. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

In fact his company wasn't instructed by the landowner, as the landowner is not Eagerstates Limited - they are just a company working with the actual landowner? But it does state they have authority from the landowner (i'm not a legal beagle, just noticed that wording)

Which, without evidence, is just "heresay".

Would this be something I can talk about in my WS? I wasn't sure if I can dispute points made by the claimants WS

EDIT: If so, I have drafted the below. Not sure if this is valid or allowed in a WS

1.      The claimant has advised that they were instructed by the landowner to manage parking on the land by way of a signed "Landowner Agreement". However, their “Landowner Agreement” which is signed by Spring Parking and Eagerstates Limited states in paragraph 1 that Eagerstates Limited are in fact not the landowner. They are simply a company who claim to "have authority" to contract car park management services. This makes the agreement presented not factually correct with the claimants statement that their “Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land” simply hearsay without evidence that they have the Landowners authority. I have seen no such evidence of this legal authority

Coupon-mad

 I wasn't sure if I can dispute points made by the claimants WS.

Certainly is.  Shoot it down!

First of all do some forum searches for short phrases from that template WS.  Try phrases with any usual word.

Then try another phrase, then another.
 

Read the results which will show you this WS is a boilerplate template that other posters have successfully shot down dozens of times.

Copy those.