Link Parking Claim

Savosmee

Also, I think I have not included everything I should have like I have mentioned PoFA as I am defending as the keeper and not the driver but I have not included a copy of Schedule 4 of PoFA, should I include one in a Skeleton Argument or is it too late?

I have included Beavis like was in the WS Template but it is not the full case law but paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 so I'm wondering whether I am supposed to include the full one?

Also I think I have included the wrong case law but I'm not sure I am panicking now I think I did it all wrong. I was postpartum at the time I drafted the WS and now I am with the baby around crying and it's really all over the place I can't think straight.

I thought I had to include a Jopson caselaw as I am relying on my lease as well but I think I have uploaded the wrong one now the one I have included in my WS a caselaw of Laura Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd dated 29 June in front of Judge Harris QC which from what I read is just him allowing the Appeal and not the correct judgment!! I will upload now. Similarly if it is the wrong case is it too late to submit the correct one now? 

I note that the other party although they're referring to several cases in their skeleton argument they have not attached any case law at all.

Savosmee

`this is the judgment I have attached

Coupon-mad

That's the right judgment as long as you attached all of the pages.

You don't need a skelly then, because the Judge can access Schedule 4 and Beavis easily.

Just send an updated Costs page (receipts attached if you have them) and sign & date it (no statement of truth though. It's not a witness statement).

Savosmee

Okay thanks that's a relief I will do that.

Do I need to rebut all the arguments that they made in their Skeleton Argument at trial? I assume I need to prepare for that but apart from a few clear things like unfair terms or PoFA or my rights under my lease I am confused by the rest.
I have tried running some searches on the forum for hours but maybe I am not using it properly as I can find some discussions referring to their Skeleton Argument but so far nothing on the specific points they've raised.

Coupon-mad

In my experience of court, it is enough to go to a hearing with a short crib sheet of your main defence points in bullet points.

Plus of course a file with EVERYTHING in it, with coloured page markers if that helps you find pages quickly.

What you will find is that the Judge will lead the discussion and nothing quite goes the way you planned it in your head on the sleepless night before!

My takeaway advice is be familiar with your case but don't overthink it. Let the Judge dictate the way.  Pick up on the visual cues; a frown when you mention something suggests that's not your best point and to move on.

Savosmee

Thanks. I assume it is okay for me to take my laptop with me at the hearing but maybe I'm wrong? I have everything in there and more used to the documents I have on screen but of course if not I will print what is not there

Savosmee

I've re-read their WS and Supplementary WS last night.

On the PCN issued, the NTK and in the PoC the breach is always mentioned as only "Exceeded Maximum Stay Period"
Then as I've mentioned the pictures they show of the car from the 2 different dates show the car is parked differently so was moved which I say in my WS and that the car therefore is not evidenced having exceeded the maximum stay period of 24 hours.

But in their WS and SWS they alternatively say that the car was parked for over 24 hours or that the car returned within the period of no return for 48 hours.

But would everyone agree that therefore their PoC and also their PCN should have add more to the breach and say "(OR) returned within the period of no return" instead of only mentioning "Exceeded the Maximum Stay Period". Or is it fair to think that returning within the period of no return could be comprise under the breach of "Exceeding the Maximum Stay Period".

Because if it's not then it of course further supports my claim that PoC were not detailed enough and I make reference to Chan judgement and attach it as per the template. But yesterday I realised by re-reading the PoFa Schedule that it would also make the original PCN and NTK invalid on this ground too.

LDast

If the PoC were considered insufficient to plead a defence, that should have been your main defence point. You can’t now turn around and say that you are unable to defend properly because the PoC were deficient. 

You can raise technical arguments as to why the court should strike out the claim based on CPR  16.4 failures as that is mentioned in the template defence. Any argument as a “motion to dismiss” needs to be made as a preliminary matter at the hearing. 

Without trawling back through the thread, is the defendant being sued as the driver? If so, how can the claimant prove it was the same driver that returned within 48 hours (or any period of “no return”)!?  

Savosmee

Yes the insufficient PoC was definitely one of the main point in my Defence.
I have now also realised it could also make the Notice to Driver and NTK invalid as well.
But just wanted to check if you'd agree that "Exceeded Maximum Stay Period" would only be referring to parking longer than 24 hours (which was the maximum stay period) or whether it could be understood also (or had been understood this way in the past by a judge) as not returning during the period as well? 
Just had this little last minute uncertainty so wanted experts thoughts...

Defendant is being sued as the keeper, I was not the driver and stated it clearly in my Defence.

Claimant cannot prove who was the driver either on day 1 or day 2.

Coupon-mad

LDast said:

If the PoC were considered insufficient to plead a defence, that should have been your main defence point. You can’t now turn around and say that you are unable to defend properly because the PoC were deficient. 

The OP is not trying to say that.

They are pointing out a silver bullet.

This has to win.  If the NTK and POC allege "Exceeded Maximum Stay Period" then the C is stuck with that allegation only and cannot change direction in the WS.

If it wasn't pleaded in the POC then a C cannot be heard to say something different now.  The evidence shows a vehicle that was moved in between the first and last photos so their own evidence simply doesn't support the allegation in the NTK and the POC.  

No breach.  Game over.