Court Claim Received from HX & Gladstones

Worzel_

Thanks @Coupon-mad how likely is the judge to strike out and not consider the sign they introduced in their WS (that wasn't in their claim).

Worzel_

Would this be a good way to go about it?

1. I, [Your Name], of [Your Address], am the Defendant in this case. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. On [date], I parked at [location] and saw only one prominent sign, which is the sign originally provided by the Claimant in their claim. This sign is displayed at the entrance to the car park and is the only sign that is readable from a car when entering the premises. I have marked this sign with a purple cross on the attached Google Street Map view of the car park.

3. The sign at the entrance does not state a £100 charge, and this was the only sign I saw when entering and parking. There were no other clearly visible signs that would have informed me of any such charge.

4. In their witness statement, the Claimant has introduced a new sign that was not part of their original claim. If this new sign is to be considered, it should be noted that it is located behind parked cars and is not readable from a vehicle. Furthermore, this sign is easily obscured when tall vehicles are parked in front of it, making it difficult for a driver to see when entering or using the car park. I have marked the location of this sign with a yellow cross on the same Google Street Map view.

5. I object to the introduction of this new sign at this stage of proceedings, as it was not included in the original claim and significantly changes the basis of the Claimant’s case. This is procedurally unfair, as it denies me a fair opportunity to assess and challenge this evidence.

6. Under CPR 27.2 & 27.8, small claims proceedings should be conducted fairly and proportionately. I request that the court disregard the late evidence.

7. Even if the new evidence is considered, the fact remains that the only clearly visible sign did not mention a £100 charge. For a contract to be formed, terms must be clearly communicated to the driver. As the original sign provided by the Claimant fails to include this charge, and the new sign is not prominently displayed, the parking charge is unenforceable under consumer contract law and parking industry standards.

8. I respectfully request that the court dismiss the claim, as the Claimant has failed to provide consistent, timely, and enforceable evidence of any valid contractual terms.

You can disregard para 1. And also I would edit out all the "I" as I was not the driver. ChatGPT helped write this.

The difference here is I would not be including photos of any signs. Only the google streep map posted before so that I still have an argument if the judge allows them to introduce this new sign.

1505grandad

Are you backing up your Defence where you stated:-

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver."

Worzel_

1505grandad said:

Are you backing up your Defence where you stated:-

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver."

Yes, chatgpt wrote that and I didn't heavily edit it yet to take out I as the driver.

Le_Kirk

Don't like the use of  Chatgpt, write it in your own words and make sure that the WS backs up the defence. You might want to choose a different colour than purple, that's twice I've had to search hard for your cross!

Coupon-mad

That WS is nothing like the examples you'd find when you do the forum search that the NEWBIES thread second post (WS & evidence stage)  tells people to do, and you seem to have ignored the carefully collated exhibit list provided for you in the sticky thread.

Worzel_

Here's my WS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtWdgxHQ4R67EpqE78jtm7khjQHMAGnZ/view?usp=drive_link

Please ignore paragraph numbering after "Exaggerated Claim and “market failure” currently examined by UK Government"

I have to submit this on Monday 17th.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Needs all mentions of 'the Defendant' changed to "I" and I wouldn't have an American Z in 'recognised'.

And it must be no more than 50 pages so maybe remove a few of the older 'strike out' judgments (NOT removing Chan or Akande!).

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  paras 3 and 28  -  incorrect middle "e" in Judgment  -  see docs you are exhibiting.

In view of the use of Chan and Akande cases should the following statement be included in the para?:_

"8. Parking Notice: The Claimant pursues a claim for non-payment of parking charges."

Your exhibits 5 and 6 "Entrance signage" shows a Napier Parking Ltd sign?

Worzel_

Thanks @Coupon-mad @1505grandad all suggested changes have been made except for (because I don't understand):

In view of the use of Chan and Akande cases should the following statement be included in the para?:_

"8. Parking Notice: The Claimant pursues a claim for non-payment of parking charges."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtWdgxHQ4R67EpqE78jtm7khjQHMAGnZ/view?usp=drive_link