Multiple county court claims?

It doesn't refer to 14 days, no. It just states the deadline, which is about a month before the hearing date.

It says "The parties must send the documents so that they are received by no later than [x]"

Witness statements have now been exchanged. Parking contractor has finally made specific reference to my lease. (I don't think they knew what it said until now.)

They rely on the paragraph in my lease which was discussed in posts #10 and #11, so it seems to me that the case may hinge on this.

The lease requires me not to contravene reasonable arrangements for "the regulation and circulation of vehicular traffic" in "the exterior of the estate".

I believe, and Loadsofchildren123 agreed, that this would not apply to my demised parking space. The more legal basis I can establish for this, the better.

1. 'Traffic' implies moving vehicles not parking. Dictionary definitions back this up. I cannot think of any context in which a parked vehicle would be referred to as traffic.
2. "The estate" would imply the retained parts and not my demised property.

Can anyone advise of anything I can use to prove/support this position (e.g. legal principles/definitions/precedent)?

Court hearing was this morning. Result was mixed.

My claim and parking company's counter-claim were both dismissed - the problem in my case being that I was claiming for a penalty I had paid ; my argument that this was under duress was not accepted. No award for costs. So I am currently out of pocket somewhat (the one PCN I paid, plus my own costs of bringing the claim). In theory I would have done better to just sit tight at the outset and wait for them to take me to court. However the reality is that in my case attending court would most likely have cost me far more in lost earnings than the cost of the parking ticket, so paying it was a rational decision at the time.

More significantly, I think, the judge agreed that there was no legal basis for ticketing my vehicle on my property. This precludes any further PCNs or legal action.

I'm going to continue pursuing them for reimbursement of my costs, making formal complaints to themselves, BPA, IPC, DVLA as required. I have demonstrated that they have no jurisdiction in this particular location since all parking spaces are demised to leaseholders, and no doubt the same applies to many other sites. I think they would be well advised to pay me £250 rather than have me make a lot more noise about this, although TBH I do not credit them with enough sense to recognise it.

I am merely asking them to, on the basis that I will continue to pursue the matter via formal complaints to the various bodies, plus publicity via print and social media, if they do not.

It's their choice, ultimately, but as I said I think reimbursement would be in their best interests. I have information which undermines the premise on which they operate their business.

My letter on the above does advise them that any PCNs issued to me are invalid, as proven in court, and any pursuit of them is liable to be met with a claim for trespass and harassment.

I'm sure I could do that, but I am not intending to.

For one thing there are other issues at the property which the freeholder should be dealing with. I don't really want to add any additional distractions.

I would only want to replace the parking contractor if there was something better to replace them with (e.g. a company which behaves more ethically)... but from what I hear I'm not sure there is.

I am not against a system which prevents unauthorised parking. That serves a valid purpose. My problem is just when no common sense is applied, and people who were legitimately parked are pursued for large fines.