Need My Witness Statement Checking Over

iffy_jiffy wrote: »

Hi all, just doing the Skeleton Argument...question...is the "request for further and better particulars" the same as a "Part 18 Request for Information"?

I did send a "request for further and better particulars" but received no reply from Gladstones/ES...no surprises there!

Hearing date at the court is next week!

Request for Further and Better Particulars is what we used to call a Part 18 Request for Information before the CPR came in, when the old rules were in force. They are essentially the same thing. The new rules favoured modernising the language used in court proceedings so it was less archaic. So the RF&BPs became a simple Request for Information. Legal practitioners actually refer to each specific rule in the CPR as a "part". So what we often call "rule 27" on here is actually called "part 27" by lawyers. Probably for no reason other than it makes us feel self important. Because rule (or Part) 18 deals with the Request for Information it is known as a Part 18 Request.


Part 18 does not in fact apply to small claims track cases (this is set out somewhere in rule 27). But under the pre-action protocol you are entitled to information about the claim so that before proceedings are issued you can properly consider your position in relation to it and potentially engage in a dialogue about it. The right extends beyond and into the claim stage (there's no rule that says this, but rule 16 requires the PoC to contain sufficient information for you to understand the claim and if they don't then of course you are entitled to ask questions - to prohibit any questions after a claim is issued would be against the rules of natural justice). So even though Part 18 doesn't apply, that doesn't mean you can't ask questions about the claim and how they will evidence it.


My Skeleton - this was absurdly long. I became like a woman possessed when I dealt with my relative's parking ticket. The way I drafted it though was to make clear that only the first couple of pages were relevant if the court agreed with my first two points. I think was included as a precedent purely because it sets out a lot of the precedent case law and the law on things like contract, signage, advertising consent etc.


The SA is not a requirement. But I think it's a helpful document for both the court and you. For you it is like a crib sheet on the day. It should cross reference to the documents (eg PoC/Defence/WS) by paragraph and page number. For the court it means the judge doesn't really need to read all the other documents because everything is summarised nicely in the Skeleton (all they need to do, if anything, is look at the specific parts of the documents you point to in the SA).

The BPA CoP document: I think I cribbed this from someone else (quite possibly Lamilad). There is some reference in some case somewhere (can't remember now) that as the Secretary of State has not made any regulations under POFA then the relevant CoP should be treated by the court as having the status of regulations. Therefore I wanted to demonstrate all the breaches and doing so in a table was the easiest way.


The POFA breaches document: I was relying on no keeper liability as my primary defence and so demonstrating breaches was important for me. Again, I thought the easiest way to demonstrate the different breaches was in table form.

Just skim read it.


The point I made above about compliance with the CoP being paramount was in the Beavis case (how could I have forgotten) - this is in para 33 of your SA.


In para ii of the first part where you summarise their case and your response, you've confused the two contracts.

There is one contract, which is the basis of the claim, which it is claimed was made between driver and Claimant. That's the contract set out in the signs.

There is another contract, and that is the contract between landowner and PPC giving it authority to operate. This has nothing to do with the terms of the contract between driver/Claimant, other than on the point of whether it actually has authority to bring proceedings at all. In my case there was a clause in the contract saying that the Claimant had authority to pursue drivers. If there isn't in yours then this should be made as a separate point. C's case being that it is authorised and entitled by the parking contract with the landowner to pursue a driver/keeper, including via court proceedings, for the charge. D's case being that the parking contract does not provide such authorisation and is void for other reasons.

When you delete your paras marked "ignore" don't forget to change the para references in the document (eg somewhere you refer to paragraph 18 above, when paragraph 18 will by the time you make the deletions become a different number).

8.2 doesn't make sense, not sure what you're trying to say here.

31 etc - not sure if you should include all of this. Did you argue it in your defence? The transparency point in the second part are perhaps more relevant than the other complaints you make (eg the not being allowed to display a mark without permission, I doubt the judge will take any notice of that).

Costs: I'd strip this out into another document to make the Skeleton shorter. Also, you're using an old draft from pre-October 2017. After that date, the new Protocol for Debt Claims replaced the old Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (although paras 13-16 of the old PD still apply). So your references all need to be changed (assuming your claim was issued after October).

In general, you can make the whole thing shorter by making it more bullet point-y in language, if you see what I mean. So instead of full sentences, use a few words instead to make the point.

If you take out 31, I'd put 31.4 (or a shorter version of it) into the contract section

Rule 27 has not been replaced. That is the same.
In October 2017 the rules governing pre-claim conduct were changed. Before that, it was governed by the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
After that, it has been governed by the Protocol for Debt Claims (although the Protocol says that paras 13-16 of the old Practice Direction, which set out the sanctions for failing to comply, still exist).


So your costs argument sets out the ways in which they ignored the Protocol, but goes on to refer to the sanctions in paras 13-16 of the old PD as these continue to apply and they give the court the power, inter alia, to order costs.


In essence, the Protocol says the same things, but in different language and in different paragraph numbers, but it has the identical intention of assisting in claims settling before they are ever issued.