Excel Parking vs MrGrumpy

callmeMrGrumpy

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need Chan because the Template Defence already covers vague POC.

ok - I've removed and tidied up a bit.

many thanks for your help on this. My WS is now on Dropbox ith a link for viewing so that make things easier to read and follow.

could you cast your eyes over this please.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1rgippufk8tercfbdd99l/Car-Parking-2024-Witness-Statement-v1.2-Draft.docx?rlkey=9i2jvupkarriopylx2yxm9akb&dl=0

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Everything in page 3 should go.

And this is wrong:

"13.   With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs'"

Not_A_Hope

I think @Coupon-mad is referring to deleting most of your preliminary matters section. I would get rid of the Defence argument and include any relevant facts in with the Timeline section. I don’t think it is worth explicitly complaining about Excels behaviour / shortfalls as the claim  before the judge is about your actions.

Lots of typos you need to correct some of which are listed below.

para 6 - should be is insufficient 
para 7 - delete. You are not counter claiming. You will be asking for your costs.
para 11 & 15 - but they have stated which T&C they allege you broke. It may be incorrect or lacking the detail you may like to see but they have stated it. Have you checked you inputted the correct VRM into their website?
para 16 - does not make sense as written
para 17 - might be useful to include the P&D machine was not working and the steps needed to load and use their website (included in your timeline)
para 18 - typo. Defendants that this condition…?
para 24 - typo - I Confirm (small c)
para 32 - no idea what actions in step 8 refers to.
para 34 - I would remove the ‘getting away with it reference’. It implies you might have done something wrong.
para 43 - typo. the correct site. the correct car park…
para 78/79 - incomplete sentence runs into next numbered paragraph.
para 80 - I would list their Leaseholder Witness Statement as an exhibit to further draw attention to its inadequacy to the judge.

You need to add a paragraph detailing requesting your standard witness costs in defending this claim.

Just so you understand Excel v Wilkinson was about an abuse of process and adding false fees. Therefore the judge chose to throw their whole claim out. Not sure what Excel have included in their claim but probably £70 so it does apply

Hope this helps. I expect Excel to discontinue when they see your WS or get a spanking and your costs. 

1505grandad

"...... is referring to deleting most of your preliminary matters section."

Not forgetting refs re Chan at the end of WS and contents list.

callmeMrGrumpy

Just sitting in the car a car park doing as ,I say night is run around in circles dripping of kids and collecting from various clubs. I’ll update as many of these suggestions as possible when in front of computer in a couple of hours. Just a couple of things to clarify in the mean time. 

Para 6 - should be “was” not “as” (kids playing fortnight have killed the W on the keyboard, it’s hard trying to type messages without the use of W’s, I’m on my phone now).

Para 3 - 7 were taken directly from my defence I returned a month or so ago in its entirety. I didn’t want to pick and choose parts of it. I did say I was going to counter claim but Judge already said any attempt would be struck out and costs can be awarded at appropriate time. 

Para 11 and 15. -  Doesn’t  CPR16.4 mean they should state which term or condition I was in breach of, the POC just says I was in breach of them. As for inputting VRM it’s never been disputed or mentioned as incorrect so far.

Para 16 - will tidy up. Trying to state that POC and Witness statement contradict each other. POC says no payment, Witness statement says payment ,add but to slowly. 

para 17 - understood will add something. 

Para 32 - from a very early draft timeline. Should refer to para 31. 

A few more I’ll do when at home. I’ll edit this and get back in a hour or two. 

callmeMrGrumpy

Is there a standard costs template or section in any of the newbies WS’s? I don’t recall seeing one when reading through others..

edit - found something to cover it.

callmeMrGrumpy

I've got version 1.3 updated now. Taken out a lot of page 3 / Preliminary maters, updated paragraph numbers and reordered exhibits after removing those suggested for the chop.

thanks to @Coupon-mad and @Not_a_Hope for the help with this and persisting through the dyslexic rambles and dodgy keyboard.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wes31wsqjm12b5xzf561z/Car-Parking-2024-Witness-Statement-v1.3-Draft.docx?rlkey=92dixjvatmhxtx7rgmyev48vv&dl=0

Not_A_Hope

That updated version is an improvement. A few additional comments:-

para 9. The judge may not understand POC. Write the Particulars of Claim (POC) then you can use the abbreviation subsequently
            The POC doesn’t actually state ‘non-payment of fees due’ does it. If you are going to quote the POC you must state what is actually written.
             You could tidy this paragraph up and reference the relevant section of the claimants WS as an exhibit.
para 11. What evidence have you the the PPC is pursuing a breach of ‘paying within 5 mins of entry.

General - throughout your WS you have thrown in an unnecessary capital letter particularly after a comma. I would tidy it up as it might drive some judges mad. You also have a tendency to miss out the beginning of sentences which would read better with an initial ‘The’. You also mix up your grammatical tenses throughout e.g para 24 I navigated…., I reload…. I close down. Stick to one tense and finish your words with ‘ed’ to make it read better.

62-67 don’t use both para numbers and letters to list the additional directions.

para 71 - 74. Use the word Directions not Directives.

para 75. I think you meant to write ‘and bears no relation to this case’.

para 75. I wouldn’t include. The POC does include the nature of the breach even if they subsequently are alleging a different breach.

para 86/87. Don’t need para numbers if using letters.

para 87. What further costs are you actually asking for and why?

para 88. Random 30 listed probably as a cut and paste error

1505grandad

1505grandad said:

"...... is referring to deleting most of your preliminary matters section."

Not forgetting refs re Chan at the end of WS and contents list.

Still showing reference to Chan at para 82

callmeMrGrumpy

Been a bit quiet of late on this, got back from small claims court a few minutes ago. I won. Well they lost, poor kid they sent was just not prepared in the slightest whilst trying to come across as confident. It was more funny than anything else. 

I’ll write a better account when at a computer rather than on a mobile, probably in the morning.