Jump to content

Legggy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Legggy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks EB, I will catchup on the mentioned thread as I had used it before the hearing. I went for hearing. Rep approached mentioning settlement, talking about them having a strong case to which I pointed out their bundle which they were going through that it says Excel here so aren't you here for the wrong company. They mentioned sister companies, I mentioned companies house and then I said let's leave it to the judge they went away from me. The rep went into a room presumably to call their firm Elms Legal I think probably for advice. We ended up being the l
  2. Hi sorry , nothing much to report as it got adjourned. I had meant to come on and update but got overtaken by family in ICU etc so just been struggling a bit. Will try and put up some details of what happened later...
  3. Court letter states to the effect the hearing for claims A and B will be on C. I will contest on basis of no WS and see what the judge says. Thanks
  4. Hi, I had no WS for this case but it is being bulk processed/heard together with my other case for a separate car park for which all WS are in place. Are they allowed to have this case heard without a separate WS for it?
  5. I have sent in the WS on time and was just following the advice on chucking the kitchen sink so was just asking for advice.
  6. Hi, I know it's late but I found something additional that could assist from one of the other cases. Is it too late to email the courts and VCS as hearing is on Thursday? Could VCS reject saying they don't accept service of documents by email?
  7. I'll try finding stuff on Parking prankster's blogspot before sending it in via email to courts. We have been advised not to use email to VCS or is it ok at this stage to email them or will 1st class post be ok stating that these are just part of an index of paper submissions rather than at WS itself?
  8. Thanks EB, will try writing something up on costs. I did look up and quoted the separate company numbers in my WS (went in today) , hoping (praying) that the previous case being dismissed will be sufficient. I did initially have print outs of companies house for each but due to circs didn't get to add to the WS. If it comes to it then I will take copies to the hearing and pending on judge lottery it may hopefully be ok.
  9. I'll try to find and read up. Please advise on the following point as I wrote enclosed but then didn't enclose anything. Will that go against me? -It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed).
  10. Hi, I have sent the WS to VCS after making the advised amendments including an excerpt from the Star regarding dismissed cases within the 2nd paragraph. I ended with a paragraph I found "If Judgment is made in favour of the Claimant, I would respectfully point out that the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the amount originally invoiced from the keeper. He cannot recover additional expenses, so the maximum charge should not exceed £100. " Was that ok and how do I back it at the hearing? I n
  11. Thanks ericsbrother. Is there a link to the specific company law that I could use in my WS please incase the judge is unaware of company law and allows them to act on behalf of Excel?
  12. Please advise if the following is ok to use? I will say as follows: It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours. The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If
×
×
  • Create New...