What to submit for hearing?

GuineaPog

Thank you

@MrJenkinsEsq Thank you for rewording, much appreciated. (Your "click here" isn't a link.) it is in my document, as I'm a newbie I'm being restricted from sharing links at this time on the forum. This is the url it takes to https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf

@Coupon-mad

But the 'click here' needs to be an actual exhibit and it ISN'T the final Supreme Court judgment (which doesn't need linking as any judge has Beavis).

The exhibit needed is HHJ Moloney's first instance judgment of course. That's the whole point. It's the missing link that judges haven't seen. That first judgment spells out that the whole pre-action letter-chain including the LBC is covered by the £PCN.

are you saying the contents of the link (when working) need to be submitted as evidence rather than linked?

Remove all this. Pointless on a case with amended POC:

Defective Particulars of Claim

"6. I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent and persuasive Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The POC seen here in my case are far worse than the ones seen on the below Appeals).

7. The first persuasive Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (click for link) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 that “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract”. 

8. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. A copy of the transcript of HHJ Evans’ judgement is included in Exhibit OW-04."

Just to be clear as I have square eyes now 😎, remove current para 6, 7 and 8 altogether.

And you've copied my words, at/around para 17, but it makes no grammatical sense! Read it again: the words 'you'!

Thank you, I will check, I'm in mad compile mode so just trying to get it all together and will read again (and again)

Cheers people.

Coupon-mad

"are you saying the contents of the link (when working) need to be submitted as evidence rather than linked?"

Yes. Give it a sequential exhibit number.

GuineaPog

Done, thank you. WS amended and checked and rechecked, will see if I get their WS before sending, and review anything additional if raised. Thank you for all your help!

GuineaPog

WS submitted yesterday to court and claimant in line with deadline via email.

No WS received prior to sending mine, it instead arrived by post today with post mark of 27/8 - which goes against the request 'Each party must deliver to the other party and to the Court office copes of all document on which that party intends to rely at hearing no later than August 27 2026' - but I'm guessing this won't matter?

I don't fully know what is and isn't ok to share so for now will say I've been given

WS (new name on this to before)

In the WS Parking Eye - v Beavis is cited for proof of valid contract, but not exhibited

VCS is cited for 'Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which the driver will be liable.' (My note - Defendant was not driver and this was stated to them on initial appeal letter)

Headings from their WS

Contract - Beavis, terms clear

Pay & Display - Ways of paying, records

The Parking Charge - Times, records of machine - this states 'in Paybyphone records there is one account for the registration there was not a ticket purchased' - so I have the log and it shows 3 vehicles on the list, only one of this record is for this vehicle and is a different date.

However it seems to be linked to the registered keepers email (details an email at the top and several vehicles linked to account) - but not driver's and as the driver paid if linked by email it wouldn't show)

Further note - the logs for the day on pay and display nor pay by phone only show completed ones, not any errors where it hasn't gone through.

Liability - No ticket, company used POFA to contact RK, non standard appeal sent in - rejected but good will reduction. Then further letters and no response so court.

The Defence - No documents received but as appeal stated mitigating circumstance (thought to be paid) - based on evidence no parking paid so rejected it. Disproportionate charge - but as signage states it defendant has agreed to terms.

The Current Debt - Contracted £100 not paid in 28 days, breach of contract. 'IPC prescribe max charge of £100…' 'Where a parking charge become overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.' They say they are compliant. Debt is due to their time and resource recovering the fee as a result of defendants breach of contract - 'pre-determined and a nominal contribution to actual losses' Goes on to say have right 'to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).' as signs state additional costs will be added to the value of parking charge - found in VCS v Percy.

So I think I need to do skeleton statement, get printing and that's it unless I'm mistaken.

BTW if I've shared too much please say, as I'll remove what I need to!

Car1980

Keep the envelope with the postmark and take it with you. Bring it up as a preliminary matter. Some judges are sticklers for the rules and some don't care. But you can say SiP make enough court claims so should know how comply with court order dates.

Their whole claim is based upon motorists following rules with no leeway. If they cannot follow the court's own rules, why should leeway be given here?

Coupon-mad

And is the exact same company and number shown on:

• the signs
• the landowner contract, and
• the NTK?