SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

Coupon-mad

Only difference being it sounds like on that thread the WS was written by their solicitor Gladstones, whereas mine is written by a solicitor of Spring Parking and signed by him. 

Spring Parking don't have an in-house solicitor...surely not?

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

Only difference being it sounds like on that thread the WS was written by their solicitor Gladstones, whereas mine is written by a solicitor of Spring Parking and signed by him. 

Spring Parking don't have an in-house solicitor...surely not?

Well, the WS is showing the below - a quick Google search of his name shows him as working for Spring. But then as I said it shows the DCB Legal address stamped. It might be nothing but just something I found odd.

paddyposh

I have rejigged some of it, so again any comments welcomed. Will aim to submit this afternoon via email

LDast

Some points of serious concern regarding that WS:

1. Lack of Clarity on the Signatory's Role: The WS does not specify Alan Vorhand's position within Spring Parking Ltd, only stating that he is "employed" by the company. Without clear information about his role, it's impossible to assess whether he has the necessary knowledge to provide factual testimony. If he is not in a position where he would directly have personal knowledge of the facts of the case, then his statement is largely hearsay rather than a legitimate witness account.

2. Ambiguity in Signing "on Behalf of the Claimant": The fact that the statement of truth is signed "on behalf of the claimant" instead of directly by Alan Vorhand in his own name raises concerns. It creates ambiguity about whether the statement reflects his personal knowledge or is merely a company position or legal strategy presented by DCB Legal. This phrasing completely undermines the requirement that a witness statement must be based on the individual's own knowledge and belief, and not simply represent the views of the company or its legal representatives.

3. DCB Legal's Involvement: The inclusion of DCB Legal's name and address in the signature block, along with the phrasing used, suggests that the WS has been heavily drafted or influenced by DCB Legal, rather than being an authentic witness statement from someone with direct, personal knowledge of the facts. This suggests the WS being more of a legal document prepared to support the claimant's case rather than a genuine statement from an individual with first-hand information.

4. Potential Hearsay: Without specifying Alan Vorhand's capacity within the company or clarifying his connection to the facts of the case, the statement is simply hearsay, which diminishes its probative value. If Alan Vorhand's role is not one that gives him direct personal knowledge of the facts, the content of the WS consists mainly of information provided by others, which should be clearly disclosed. By not distinguishing between personal knowledge and information obtained from other sources, the WS is misleading the court into believing that the statement is based entirely on first-hand evidence.

5. Mendacity: The cumulative effect of the vague role, the "on behalf of the claimant" signature, and DCB Legal's apparent heavy involvement should be seen as an attempt to present a WS that only superficially complies with procedural requirements while disguising the fact that it lacks a true personal witness with direct knowledge. This could be construed as mendacious, as it appears to obscure the true nature and source of the evidence presented.

paddyposh

Thanks for that @LDast glad it wasn't me going mad. I will include that within the section talking about their WS

paddyposh

I think with the above I am fairly happy with it as a whole. With all the exhibits its around 60 pages but my own statement section is 12-13 so I am hoping the overall length is OK. Someone did mention max 50.

Unless there is any other advice noted I shall send it to DCB & the court around 3pm.

Coupon-mad

Get it down to 50 pages or the court will likely refuse it.  What is making it so long?

Alan V isn't a solicitor and doesn't claim to be.

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

Get it down to 50 pages or the court will likely refuse it.  What is making it so long?

Alan V isn't a solicitor and doesn't claim to be.

Mainly as there are a lot of examples of strikeouts from other cases in the first exhibit. I will remove some as there are numerous after Chan and Akande

Coupon-mad

I agree. Cut it down to Chan & Akande only, as they are persuasive appeals.

paddyposh

Thanks. Yep have got it down, the formatting between word online and my desktop version had inflated the page numbers anyway so it was below 50 already anyway.


Thank you again to everyone who has helped me on this. It is greatly appreciated.