Horizon/Gladstones Parking Claim- Court date looming - advice please

Coupon-mad

"Can I simply ask the Judge to decide the case based on the witness statement provided and not attend?"

Absolutely not. You'd lose, so forget that.

The judge won't strike out a WS just because it was sent one day late. You weren't disadvantaged. Don't mention it.

I only skim-read before bed but surely you noticed that the signs say £70 but the POC says £80? It's not a deal-breaker for most judges but does expose their POC as a template pile of rubbish. Definitely look to pull their exhibits apart. There will be other trash. e.g. what in-situ photos are in their bundle to prove the signs were clear around that time?

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82006696#Comment_82006696

Thanks for the feedback. I will attend.

Regarding timing of the WS - I would argue that the claimant did have the advantage of seeing my WS and responding in kind to the points raised. If there is a 14 day rule, it should surely be adhered to, especially by a professional litigator.

The signage pictures are pretty clear to be fair, this is a Tesco site and the signage is comprehensive and pretty clear - they have included actual photos and a site plan (I can include these if beneficial). However you are right - the sign states £70 but the PoC states £80 + another spurious £70 for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PoC T&Cs', neither of which have been supplied, despite being requested to prove this element. I intend to focus on this aspect.

To be honest, I offered the original £70 at mediation stage to make this go away, which was rejected - the mediator said the minimum they would accept was £210 which is preposterous - I'd sooner take my chance in court. Would it be worth mentioning this fact to the judge also? This demonstrates and unwillingness to settle at the PCN amount and a disregard for the mediation stage by the claimant.

Gr1pr

Frankly , you should concentrate on the core facts of the case itself in court, not a slightly late WS

NO alleged breach pleaded, ergo Chan and Akande defence

Defendant on holiday and driver not identified, so no keeper liability under POFA 2012

If you definitely were not the driver, say so

Strict proof of landowner authority and signage etc

Incorrect Poc amounts and the additional £70 spurious debt collectors charge, plus the interest figure

Then the lack of a mutually agreed settlement at Mediation

The late WS is just a possible add on, depending how it goes

Etc

You should write up a shortlist of bullet points as a crib sheet for court, as an aide memoire

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82006952#Comment_82006952

Thanks for the advice, appreciated.

Taiko

Those parts, especially with their insistence they are not relying on POFA, should be fatal to their case. I recently beat Horizon/Gladstones in court, but mine didn't even get to those points.

What will probably happen, given recent cases, is that they'll send a skeleton argument to the court before, probably with a falsified date, and then not even send an advocate. Not guaranteed they won't, but that seems to be the pattern.

If you sent your WS to them after you'd received theirs, double check the dates on any skeleton submitted. If they date the skeleton prior to your WS, it may be worth highlighting that as an attempt to damage their credibility.

£80 vs £70 thing is always a good thing also.

longjohnsilver76

On this point…

"Defendant on holiday and driver not identified, so no keeper liability under POFA 2012"

Although I mentioned POFA in relation inflated charges, I didn't mention 'no keeper liability under POFA 2012' in relation to transfer of liability to registered keeper in my Defence or WS. I guess it's too late to include that as an argument now?

Coupon-mad

Of course it's not too late!

That is your slam-dunk win right there.

You simply point out verbally at the hearing that a registered keeper cannot be held liable if a parking firm chooses not to use the POFA. End of story. If it were that simple, there would have been no need for Schedule 4 of POFA.

Secondly you will obviously point out that the supposed 'contractual' signs don't even state £80 let alone a specified added false fee, which is double recovery of costs already easily covered by a £70 PCN.

Even better, why not email a Skeleton argument tomorrow, attaching Excel v Smith, VCS v Edward and HHJ Moloney's Beavis judgment?

Copy the words and links about those cases that you should have copied, from the WS in the April thread by @JackR1