Biting back with a vengeance

Coupon-mad

Who is to say Ms Yates is attending? And who is she?

I suspect as the Claimant, it was perhaps (check your hearing order from earlier) your job to collate everything and supply a paginated court bundle including the D's WS.

If I'm right, the D might try to argue for wasted costs due to your omission that caused the adjournment.

GettingOnInYears

Yates is the company solicitor for CP Plus t/a GroupNexus.

The court has my full bundle already. It's only her witness statements that were missing. I suspect that on the dismissal of the case for non payment of the hearing fee (before I made a N244 submission to have it brought back) she may have thought it not necessary to file them. It's not really the case though as we both had timelines to present witness statement before the dismissal date. I got them only 2 days before the last hearing - some considerable time after they should have been here. and I suspect that the ones she sent to the court were sent to Northampton who then sent them to Teesside Combined Court with the inevitable delay.

A wasted costs order is without merit.

If you PM me or email me personally I can send you a copy of the witness statements and crucially a copy of the devastating questions I'm going to ask her. I can't attach a pdf here or I'd do that.

GettingOnInYears

Reading past comments about my case presentation and the lengthy submissions I make possibly leading to the judge not thoroughly reading everything, I was heartened on Friday that finished her initial hearing by upping the time to hear the case from 3 hours to 4.

That tells me she's read the full testimony and accepts the legal implications and arguments that will be brought out and the time to properly present them. At least that's my own take on it.

Now: having completed a script of all the questions I intend to use on cross examination, and being unable to attach them as a pdf - here's a full list of questions and possible answers some of which are crucial to my case.

————————————————————————————————————————-

CROSS-EXAMINATION SCRIPT .

You: “Ms Yates, which company actually employs you.”

Expected answer: “CP Plus Ltd.”

You: “Thank you. And do you have any employed status with Ranger Services Ltd.”

Expected answer: “No.”

You: “Ms Yates, do you have any written authority to act on behalf of Ranger Services Ltd in the compilation or submission of a witness statement.”

Expected answer: “No.” (or: “I don’t have it with me”, or: “I don’t need written authority”, or: “We’re all part of GroupNexus”.)

If she dodges: “With respect, Ms Yates, I am asking a very specific question. Do you have any written authority from Ranger Services Ltd — a letter of authority, a delegation, a board resolution, or any document at all — that authorises you to act or give evidence on their behalf.”

Expected answer:“No.”

Follow-up (the pin-down): “So to be clear, you have provided a witness statement on behalf of Ranger Services Ltd, but you have no written authority from Ranger Services Ltd to do so. That is correct.”

Expected answer:“Yes.”

You: GroupNexus was incorporated as a Ltd Company in 2024. Please confirm when the landowner contract was dated? -------- (15/11/2020)

Expected answer 2020

You: “Ms Yates, just to clarify: CP Plus Ltd trades as ‘GroupNexus’,which is a trading name only and not a legal entity in its own right. A limited company cannot trade under the name of another limited company, so CP Plus Ltd could not have been trading as GroupNexus Ltd. And GroupNexus Ltd did not exist at the time the contract with the landowner was formed. That is correct

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “In your witness statement, you say that CP Plus is a member of the British Parking Association, and that BPA members are expected to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice. That is your evidence, isn't it.”

Expectedanswer:“Yes.”

You:“ You also state that CP Plus operates in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. That is correct.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You:“ And you accept that the BPA Code of Practice requires a mandatory entrance sign at every site.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “And you state in your witness statement that the entrance sign had been removed without the company’s knowledge. That is your evidence, isn’t it.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “You accept that a contract can be formed in two ways: by conduct, or by a written contract requiring a signature.”

Expectedanswer:“Yes.”

You: “You have accepted that the entrance sign was missing. And you have accepted that a contract by conduct requires the entrance sign to be present. So without an entrance sign, no contract by conduct could have been formed. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

If she hesitates: “With respect, if the entrance sign was missing, there were no terms for a driver to accept at the point of entry. Therefore no contract by conduct could have been formed.”

If she says: ‘There were lots of signs inside the site’ refer to Thornton v Shoe Lane

You: “Thank you, Ms Yates. But do you accept that the law requires the terms to be brought to the driver’s attention before or at the moment the contract is formed.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “In the Court of Appeal case Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, the court held that terms must be presented before the contract is formed and that signs inside the site cannot form a contract. You accept that verdict.”

Expected answer:“ Yes.”

You: “And in Vine v Waltham Forest, also a Court of Appeal authority, the court held that a driver cannot be bound by terms they did not see. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “You have accepted that the entrance sign — the only sign capable of presenting terms before entry — was missing. So under Thornton and Vine, no contract could have been formed. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “You accept that in order to obtain DVLA keeper data, an operator must have reasonable cause at the time of the request.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “And reasonable cause, in a parking context, depends on a contract having been formally accepted by the driver. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “In this case, the only way a contract could have been accepted was by conduct — that is, by the driver passing a compliant entrance sign. You accept that.”

Expected answer:“ Yes.”

You: “You have accepted that the entrance sign was missing. And you have accepted that acceptance by conduct requires the entrance sign to be present. So no contract could have been formally accepted by conduct. You accept that.”

Expected answer:“ Yes.”

You: “And if no contract was accepted, then no lawful basis existed to pursue the keeper. And without a lawful basis, there can be no reasonable cause. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “In order for CP Plus to issue parking charges or pursue keeper data, they must have valid authority from the landowner. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “And that authority must come from a valid contract with the actual landowner. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “Can you confirm the name of the landowner stated in the contract CP Plus rely on.”

Expected answer: “Salford Estates.”

You: “Thank you. Now can you confirm the identity of the actual landowner at the material time.” She may not know this so point to Praxis's website.

Expected answer: “Praxis.” ( This is shown on Praxis's own website and included on the site signage )

You: “So the contract CP Plus rely on names Salford Estates as the landowner, but the actual landowner was Praxis. That is correct.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “There is no document in your evidence showing any chain of authority from Praxis to Salford Estates, or from Praxis to CP Plus. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “You have already accepted that a written contract requires a signature. That is correct.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You:“ CP Plus rely on a written contract to show landowner authority. That is correct, isn’t it.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “Can you confirm whether the landowner contract you rely on is signed by both parties.”

Expected answer: “No.” - Missing CP Plus signature

If she dodges: “With respect, a written contract requires a signature by both parties in order to be valid. You accepted that earlier. This document is not fully signed. Am I correct.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “So CP Plus rely on a written contract that is unsigned, and even if it were signed, it names the wrong landowner, with no chain of authority to the actual landowner. It therefore cannot confer authority. You accept that.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

You: “Ms Yates, all of these issues — the missing entrance sign, the absence of any contract by conduct, the lack of reasonable cause, the unsigned contract, and the fact that it names the wrong landowner —were within your knowledge before this claim was submitted. Can you explain why none of these matters were taken into consideration before I was forced to issue proceedings, at a time when I was already under significant personal strain.”

Expected answer: She cannot answer. Take this as it comes

You: “Ms Yates, you have accepted that no landowner contract was formed, that no personal contract could have been accepted by conduct, that CP Plus had no reasonable cause to obtain my DVLA data, and that the landowner contract is both unsigned and names the wrong landowner.

Given these admissions, can you explain why you consider that a claim for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR is not merited.” - Wait for an answer

You: “Ms Yates, you state in your witness statement that I have provided no evidence of distress. Can you confirm that you received the links to the video clips on my email I supplied showing my wife’s severe behavioural episodes during the period in question.”

Expected answer: “Yes.”

Follow-up: “And having received that evidence, you still stated in your witness statement that I had provided no evidence of distress. Can you explain that.” - Wait for an answer

You: “Ms Yates, in addition to the video clips, my witness statement contains a compilation of WhatsApp messages between myself and my son, all dated and contemporaneous, describing the personal strain I was under at the time. Did you not consider those to be evidence of distress.” - Wait for an answer :

You: “So despite receiving dated, contemporaneous messages documenting the strain I was under, you still stated in your witness statement that I had provided no evidence of distress. Can you explain that.” - Take the next step following any kickback. THINK

You: “Thank you. So you signed a witness statement asserting that I had provided no evidence of distress, without reviewing the evidence I had submitted. Is that correct.” If she says she’s not qualified refer to the next point.

You: “With respect, Ms Yates, you relied on Lloyd v Google to argue that I had provided no evidence of distress. I am simply asking why you dismissed the evidence that was provided.”

You: “Ms Yates, can you confirm that you thoroughly read my witness statement.” - “And you will have seen the section where I described my wife’s breakdown episodes and the impact on her, You also saw the full details of my personal circumstances as setout clearly in my witness statement, correct.”

Expected answer: yes

You:“ Given that you read those details, would you accept that they clearly described the anxiety, stress, financial and emotional collapse I was experiencing at that time.”

Expected answer: yes or ask her to explain why not.

You. “Ms Yates, having confirmed that you received my emails, saw the video links, read my witness statement, and saw the details of my personal circumstances and my wife’s breakdown — do you still stand by your statement that there is ‘no evidence’ that I suffered personal injury or loss.”

Expected answer: yes or ask her to explain why. Bring in the Eggshell Skul principle if she says they were prior to the PCN.

You: “Ms Yates, do you acknowledge that the higher courts —including the Court of Appeal in Vidal-Hall v Google, which you were made aware of in my witness statement — have already ruled that personal injury and emotional distress are compensable even where no financial loss has occurred.”

Expected answer: yes

“So you accept that financial loss is not required for a claim involving personal injury or distress.” IF SHE SAYS NO - “So you are saying you are unaware of the case law confirming that distress and personal injury are compensable without financial loss.”

You: Thank you, Ms Yates. - Judge, that concludes my questions.

Not_A_Hope

“all the questions I intend to use on cross examination “

Though it would be great sport I do not think you as the claimant will get an opportunity to cross examine in a small claims court. Usually the judge asks the questions of both parties based on their submissions.

Car1980

It's a flexible on-the-day thing, as usual. But generally it's discouraged:

4.3 Rule 27.8 allows the court to adopt any method of proceeding that it considers to be fair and to limit cross-examination. The judge may in particular:

(1) ask questions of any witness himself before allowing any other person to do so,

(2) ask questions of all or any of the witnesses himself before allowing any other person to ask questions of any witnesses,

(3) refuse to allow cross-examination of any witness until all the witnesses have given evidence in chief,

(4) limit cross-examination of a witness to a fixed time or to a particular subject or issue, or both.

Coupon-mad

Did Ms Yates herself turn up to the adjourned hearing? I am concerned that if she does attend the next one (rare but possible) then 4 hours plus travel is a lot of HER professional rate costs you are risking here (plus her other hours spent on the case over the months), if they say that you acted unreasonably as the Claimant, by:

• failing to pay the hearing fee, then
• failing to include her WS in the 'full bundle' which we still don't know whether the hearing Order made your burden. It may well have been down to you.

You can even get costs awarded against you if you win a case. Beware.

I think I also warned you before that hearings never go the way you expect.

Rein in what reads like your gung-ho assumption that you will win. Litigation like this does risk costs and I worry you may have dropped the ball twice (above bullet points) and they will have noticed.

GettingOnInYears

The defendants witness statements were down to her.

She turned up in person from London to Middlesbrough last Friday but the next hearing she's doing a video link.

I know things don't always go as expected but I will have an opportunity to cross examine. It's my right - as she will have the same right to question me. 27.8 doesn't take away that right but the judge may limit the questioning to a specific time or subject. Either way it's prepared and the questions I intend to ask - as in my post - aren't time consuming. Most are simple yes/no questions.

The Judge will inevitably ask her own question of both of us, probably before we get an opportunity to ask questions ourselves. That's pretty standard procedure I expect. In any case - as is very likely - the judge may ask some of the questions I intend to bring in, which would reduce the time I'd need.

All the points raised in my own cross examination are either taken from her own witness statements for both CP Plus, and Rangers- for whom she has no evidence of authority to even speak or make any statement, or from my own witness statement and emails between us. There can be no dispute about them.

The umbrella company bit fails as it's nothing more than a trading name used by CP Plus and isn't transferrable to Rangers. GroupNexus Ltd didn't exist at the time of the landowner contract so they can't even suggest that's what was meant by CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus. Then there's the landowner contract she submitted in her witness statement which is missing the signature to show acceptance of the contract - let alone the wrong entity shown for the client.

OK, I do feel confident on this. If you feel there's something the defence can bring in - that gives her an escape route I'd love to hear it.

No sign - no BPA C.O.P. compliance - no contract by conduct - no reasonable cause - breach of the DPA and UKGDPR.

Then the conduct of the company in the preceding period showing disrespect - egregious and even intimidating behaviour. - all need to be assessed and I suggested in my W.S. that these could be considered afterwards and a verdict to be made via a reserved judgement.