Not a hospital car park

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

fineclaret said:

Ah ... I never saw this in July when I think I was on holiday. Interesting that they are filing their own claims. Very rare. No legal fees added because they are doing these in-house.

I don't expect much professionalism. She looks like an estate agent based on her other company. But that's not especially poorly pleaded. It says what the allegation is and that's what you must respond to.

I also think the introduction of your WS should explain your absence from the Directions Hearing and state that, given your absence from the UK was known to the court and was stated in your N180, you respectfully ask the court to use its case management powers and discretion to grant your wife (her full name) rights of audience for the Directions Hearing so that the basis of defence can be heard and the case listed for a full hearing after DATE (choose a date a good week after your return, not the day you fly home!).

Thanks, yes I was going to preface my WS with such a statement on my absence. There are people here who think it should be a simple matter for me to 'just get signal' at 2am on a random date (it isn’t), and of course the Court will take a similar view. But I'm not sure how much justification of my absence is necessary or appropriate there, beyond a bald statement of it.

On the PoC, I am puzzled why I am being urged to include (eg) Chan if this is a perfectly reasonable PoC. Hard to see how much more vague it could be, unless it omitted salient facts such as Reg, date, location. My issue with it is the handwaving at "T&C's", the implication I paid nothing, and the fact that it is NOT clearly stated that it is private land. In fact the most visible car park signage goes out of its way to avoid that impression. Come hither, patients and visitors, here is a nice hospital car park for you... T&C"s are perpendicular to the motorist at the entrance, on the right wall, and small-printed on the board beyond.

Coupon-mad

I don't think Chan is relevant to your case.  The POC says what is needed.

Pick the winning battles.

KeithP

fineclaret said:

On the PoC, I am puzzled why I am being urged to include (eg) Chan if this is a perfectly reasonable PoC. Hard to see how much more vague it could be, unless it omitted salient facts such as Reg, date, location. My issue with it is the handwaving at "T&C's", the implication I paid nothing, and the fact that it is NOT clearly stated that it is private land. In fact the most visible car park signage goes out of its way to avoid that impression. Come hither, patients and visitors, here is a nice hospital car park for you... T&C"s are perpendicular to the motorist at the entrance, on the right wall, and small-printed on the board beyond.

The PoC clearly state...

The ANPR system monitoring Whiston Hospital Car Park captured vehicle xxxxxxx entering and leaving the car park but parking without a valid paid parking ticket.

Can't be much clearer than that. Not vague at all.

That is what you need to defend yourself against.

fineclaret

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think Chan is relevant to your case.  The POC says what is needed.

Pick the winning battles.

I'm inclined to disagree. My Claimant's PoC is very similarly worded to that in Chan; I don't know what material distinction would prevent me from relying on it. The Chan PoC even included time in & out, which mine does not. Chan had Reg no, date, location, PCN No. Those are the only variables in an otherwise boilerplate PoC. Chan hinges on the vagueness of which "T&C's" were broken. 

KeithP

fineclaret said:
The Chan PoC even included time in & out, which mine does not. Chan had Reg no, date, location, PCN No. Those are the only variables in an otherwise boilerplate PoC. Chan hinges on the vagueness of which "T&C's" were broken. 

But the Chan PoC offered no explanation of what the driver was alleged to have done wrong.

In your case the PoC clearly state that you parked in their car park without paying.
That fact that you paid for a different car park is of no relevance.

Coupon-mad

fineclaret said:

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think Chan is relevant to your case.  The POC says what is needed.

Pick the winning battles.

I'm inclined to disagree. My Claimant's PoC is very similarly worded to that in Chan; I don't know what material distinction would prevent me from relying on it. 

The appeal related to a complete lack of specified breach in Chan (and Akande).

Maybe read the Akande transcript.  HHJ Evans explains it.

fineclaret

Maybe read the Akande transcript.  HHJ Evans explains it.

Well, it's the Chan transcript that's relevant to the Chan case. The judge accepted the argument that vague reference to "T&C's" is not good enough. Chan's and my PoC look pretty interchangeable to me, substituting only the variables I have mentioned. I don't see the magic words that render Mr Yamba's argument inapplicable.

fineclaret

In your case the PoC clearly state that you parked in their car park without paying.
That fact that you paid for a different car park is of no relevance.

That's not what happened. I paid for that car park, but was unavoidably detained on my return.

fisherjim

fineclaret said:

In your case the PoC clearly state that you parked in their car park without paying.
That fact that you paid for a different car park is of no relevance.

That's not what happened. I paid for that car park, but was unavoidably detained on my return.

So the POC is comprehensive it explains their claim and brief background information they are relying on and is better by far than most. However, it is quite clearly in your case rubbish, they picked the wrong fit.

As you have surmised it is a pick one, cut it and paste, which you can reference, but don't rely on it, it depends on which side of the bed the judge got out of.

Coupon-mad

fineclaret said:

Maybe read the Akande transcript.  HHJ Evans explains it.

Well, it's the Chan transcript that's relevant to the Chan case. The judge accepted the argument that vague reference to "T&C's" is not good enough. Chan's and my PoC look pretty interchangeable to me, substituting only the variables I have mentioned. I don't see the magic words that render Mr Yamba's argument inapplicable.

Yes, but Akande is another persuasive appeal case that people with inadequately pleaded POC also use now. New this year. Also won by Jackson Yamba.

We don't believe your POC fits that bill but if you do, use BOTH the transcripts.