Fighting parking fine, at stage, after the defence submitted

Car1980

However, if I understood the law correctly, the court has set the date for witness statement to be submitted in order to have - simultaneous exchange and just in rare cases they can approve a suplemental WS if any crucial new evidence has been brought to light.

As long as you meet that deadline the parties have complied. Anybody can send anything to the judge, if they copy the other side in, but it risks irritating them.
If they wanted a go back and forth they should have applied to have it heard on the papers. It does suggest they aren't keen on appearing in person if they want to have the argument before the hearing via the postman.
You can immediately object to the extra WS if you wish at the hearing and ask for it to be dismissed as they a) haven't appeared to explain or b) have appeared but are intent on arguing before the hearing has even commenced.

maxim024

No, they have stated within the WS that they won't attend the hearing.

Gr1pr

The parking company won't be attending the hearing 

Gladstones won't be attending the hearing 

But that doesn't mean that an advocate won't be there,  they usually do attend on behalf of the claimant 

So by saying "they" conveys nothing 

Coupon-mad

maxim024 said:

No, they have stated within the WS that they won't attend the hearing.

Yeah we know, they always say that. They send a rep.

maxim024

The hearing was yesterday,

Raised two preliminary matters,

1. Chan \ Akande
2. Late supplemental witness statement.

Judge didn't dismiss based on Chan \ Akande with an explanation that "online form for submitting claim does not have enough space to write through explanation"

Supplemental witness statement accepted as it was from senior solicitor and it didn't bring any new evidence so by Judge's opinion it doesn't affect the case.

Locus standi matter is determined that there is a discrepancy but still allowed them to have grounds for the case.

Mazur Case didn't affect, 

Hearing lasted around 45 min, Claimant had no rep present,
Case dismissed on the the basis of Beavis sign and was determined that signs were inefficient to form a contract.
Also, it was determined that the costs were disproportionate and double recovery attempted.

Thank you for all of your help.

Gr1pr

Excellent news,  a win is a win, whatever the killer point is 

UKCPM via Gladstones lose,  you win

Did you ask for and get any costs awarded  ?

maxim024

Just for the taxi to the court and back (24 quid) which has been approved.

Le_Kirk

maxim024 said:

Judge didn't dismiss based on Chan \ Akande with an explanation that "online form for submitting claim does not have enough space to write through *thorough explanation"

Weird!  Loads of other PPCS and their solicitors manage to fit in a one-liner outlining the actual breach and they can also submit an extended POC doing what we all used to do in exams "if you haven't got enough room on your exam paper you can continue on a separate sheet!"
*Did the judge mean thorough?
A win is good news though.

maxim024

Yes, thorough, I have misspelled (probably autocorrect)

So there is a possibility that many of the points that I have made have not been sufficient to dismiss the case as the Judge had a colleague (trainee) sitting next to her and just observing the process.
I kinda had a feeling that she knew from the start ot will be dismissed but just wanted to "show possibilities" to the trainee Judge.

From my point of view, even my Locus Standi had a very firm point for dismissal of the case but as this is a small claims process I guess they generally allow stuff like this.

Anyway a win is a win.

Coupon-mad

maxim024 said:

Yes, thorough, I have misspelled (probably autocorrect)

So there is a possibility that many of the points that I have made have not been sufficient to dismiss the case as the Judge had a colleague (trainee) sitting next to her and just observing the process.
I kinda had a feeling that she knew from the start ot will be dismissed but just wanted to "show possibilities" to the trainee Judge.

From my point of view, even my Locus Standi had a very firm point for dismissal of the case but as this is a small claims process I guess they generally allow stuff like this.

Anyway a win is a win.

Does sound like a thorough judge. Very good.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!