Premier Park Ltd Claim Form & Defence - Advice

1505grandad

An observation  -  if check very recent WS you will see at the beginning that there is another relevant case in addition to Chan which will then agree with your statement:-

"  56.  In CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

57. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence."

SuperE20199

I am also trying (and failing) to find high-res copies of the evidence below:

Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment

Excel v Smith Transcript

VCS v Edward Transcript

Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript

CPMS v Akande

Can anyone point to where I can find them?

Coupon-mad

You have to search the forum for them one by one. you WILL find them.

We shouldn't need to do the search for them, which is what you are asking for, because we don't have them in a hidden place anywhere!

By the way you said that unclear signs wasn't in your defence but clearly it was. You used the template. Obviously the template defence includes that argument as well as no landowner authority. You need to re-read your defence.

SuperE20199

Coupon-mad said:

You have to search the forum for them one by one. you WILL find them.

We shouldn't need to do the search for them, which is what you are asking for, because we don't have them in a hidden place anywhere!

By the way you said that unclear signs wasn't in your defence but clearly it was. You used the template. Obviously the template defence includes that argument as well as no landowner authority. You need to re-read your defence.

No problem. I’ve started to find them.

I'm unsure if there are a few duplicate things within my WS though, specifically points 43-54

I just wanted to have someone run through my WS to make sure it makes sense, and that I’m covering what I need.

SuperE20199

1505grandad said:

An observation  -  if check very recent WS you will see at the beginning that there is another relevant case in addition to Chan which will then agree with your statement:-

"  56.  In CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

57. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence."

I already have this in my WS? 

Is there another one on top of Chan & Akande? If so, what? Why does everyone seem to talk in riddles here 😅

SuperE20199

At this point I’m genuinely just considering contacting Gladstones/Premier Park and paying it off. Doesn’t seem like I can get it right, and if I can’t do that here then I’ve no hope in court.

lydecker_777

SuperE20199 said:

At this point I’m genuinely just considering contacting Gladstones/Premier Park and paying it off. Doesn’t seem like I can get it right, and if I can’t do that here then I’ve no hope in court.

Listen,

Just don't give up, I've recently had a case dismissed from Premier park due to poor photos of my vehicle ,

I cobbled together a defence , I had a ccj awarded against me , had to get it overturned and even missed the date in court due to the letter arriving after the date it was set?

It took me over 2 years but seriously , get a draft defence off here, and add your points, they are absolute chancers and their biggest chance of getting money is by you giving in to then.. 
Just think of a. How long it would take you to earn that money and B.what else you could do with it and don't give in to these chances!

1505grandad

SuperE20199 said:

1505grandad said:

An observation  -  if check very recent WS you will see at the beginning that there is another relevant case in addition to Chan which will then agree with your statement:-

"  56.  In CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

57. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence."

I already have this in my WS? 

Is there another one on top of Chan & Akande? If so, what? Why does everyone seem to talk in riddles here 😅

As I advised see a recent WS similar to the following where Chan and Akande are stated at the beginning of the WS:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81186520/#Comment_81186520

"Preliminary matter: The Claim should be struck out

3. I draw the court’s attention to two recent and persuasive appeal judgments which support the dismissal or striking out of this claim. I respectfully submit that dismissing this meritless claim aligns with the Overriding Objective."

Following paras then go on to state the Chan & Akande cases

The first time in your WS Akande is mentioned is way down in para 56  -  no mention in the first 6 paras which only contain Chan.

SuperE20199

1505grandad said:

SuperE20199 said:

1505grandad said:

An observation  -  if check very recent WS you will see at the beginning that there is another relevant case in addition to Chan which will then agree with your statement:-

"  56.  In CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

57. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence."

I already have this in my WS? 

Is there another one on top of Chan & Akande? If so, what? Why does everyone seem to talk in riddles here 😅

As I advised see a recent WS similar to the following where Chan and Akande are stated at the beginning of the WS:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81186520/#Comment_81186520

"Preliminary matter: The Claim should be struck out

3. I draw the court’s attention to two recent and persuasive appeal judgments which support the dismissal or striking out of this claim. I respectfully submit that dismissing this meritless claim aligns with the Overriding Objective."

Following paras then go on to state the Chan & Akande cases

The first time in your WS Akande is mentioned is way down in para 56  -  no mention in the first 6 paras which only contain Chan.

Thank you - amended.

SuperE20199

My WS and evidence totals 72 pages. Is this too much!? Does it just mean that I will need to hand deliver the file to the court, rather than emailing?