Congratulations on your victory. CPR 27.8 (5) The court may limit cross-examination. Also you state the witness was not there, so there was no witness to cross-examine. You cannot cross examine the judge who is there to consider the law and decide the claim, and who of course cannot advocate the claimant's claim. Was the claim heard in the claimant's absence or did they appoint a solicitor who was present? It is interesting that the case was decided on the point of loading. Under the road traffic regulation act loading areas are reserved for goods vehicles, however where the dispute is on private land I can see how this doesn't apply. As to the earlier discussion of addressing the judge, Ma'am works well in practice as some consider it flows easier than Madam, ultimately it is simply a matter of personal preference.

In order for your witness statement to trump theirs in a case that was heard on the submitted documents only means your witness statement was clearly well put together. Congratulations, clearly a deserved win. If you have the time perhaps posting up a redacted copy may assist others in future in defending such claims.

A lay representative can present a case on the small claims track provided the claimant is present. All laid out in the practice directions here at 3.2.

Personally I wouldn't tick anything until I received the money and the reports were removed. That is the leverage that got them to at least commit to the result you wanted and I wouldn't give it up until they have made good on their commitment. If they are not happy with this sequence of events then you are quite happy to go to court to resolve the matter, and they better get a move on before you are asked to pay the hearing fee. They know full well that if you do not make good on your commitment to discontinue that either the claim will eventually be stayed or they could likely apply to strike out the claim and be awarded costs, but not until they have carried out their side of the agreement. Did they offer to pay your costs of issuing the claim? Personally I would tick settled and if they don't like it they can defer to the court for their next steps but be mindful they may make a point of challenging this as they care a lot about their reputation, ultimately I wouldn't imagine it to be of great significance as the solicitors will be mainly be focussed on boasting to their client that they saved their bacon at less cost than going to court. Did you issue a paper N1 or issue the particulars separately as I cannot see that they would have fit into the MCOL text limits? Did they agree a date by which the reports would be removed? Who did Santander use as their solicitor?

insure not ensure

The exact wording used by the ICO you can expect if they agree with your view is "... are unlikely to have complied with their data protection obligations..."

It would probably help the site team if you could elaborate on the details of how you came to learn the box was empty. You haven't explained whether the buyer stated they didn't receive the item because the box was empty, or whether they opted to return the item and when you received it, it was empty. Detail can be important and it will certainly help the site team and yourself in helping you to find a solution if there is one.

P2G lost an item that you sold for £450. You are entitled to be reimbursed as if you had the item returned to you and in your possession. You cannot receive your item back as it has been lost. How should your losses be calculated? Well there is compelling evidence governed by the contract of sale that the item was worth what the buyer was willing to pay, £450. You do not have your item or your money as a result of P2G's negligence. You cannot now sell it again for £450, as it was proven to be worth. Your losses are £450. Imagine you were paid £450 but knew you were going to buy a £200 TV with the money, you couldn't pay for the TV after the sale didn't complete and so never received it, did you only lose £250 as a result? If P2G believe your losses are less than this amount, then that is for them to prove, not for you to give away.

You may wish to consider bringing a claim for the full sale value of the item. The fact that ebay charged you a fee based on the value of the item does not decrease the value of the item lost by P2G in any way. You will have to refund the person that purchased the item and are banking on the fact that ebay will also refund the fees, if for whatever reason they do not, you risk being out of pocket by the difference due to the value of your claim.

To think they paid for that rebranding with funds that should have been returned to customers whose parcels they lost or damaged but didn't because they didn't take them to court.

Not to sound like a stick in a mud but do people normally pay for a contract they have terminated? I think the points above are well made regarding the expected reaction from Sky as well as the possible affects to a credit file, but continuing to pay for the contract could be construed that the contractee isn't serious about their proposal and risks Sky claiming the contract is still enforce. You could go down the path later of stating Sky should not have collected any further direct debit once the contracted is deemed terminated by the contractee, however and rightfully so individuals have been given much greater control over how automated payments leave their account and can be cancelled when companies go rogue.

Don't make any assumptions on what evidence they hold based upon the images included on the speculative invoice ("SI). Follow the link they provide and download a copy of all the images they hold which are likely to be more numerous as well as of greater size, quality and detail than those included on the SI.

You are being sued for pecuniary losses. The Claimant has several issues with their claim which you should certainly raise to the judge. 1) Unfair contract The reason the "contract" is likely unfair is they deem 4 months as an appropriate period of time after which their "losses" cannot be recovered. You should argue this is unreasonable as any business worth its salt should be able to attract new business within 4 months. Perhaps their attitude of threatening to sue their customers contributes to this lack of business? A more appropriate period may be 2-4 weeks or alternatively invite the court to determine a period. Effectively what the Claimant has tried to include in their terms is a penalty clause. My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected on this point, is that there is no lawful basis for a right of action under a penalty clause and they are in effect unenforceable. 2) Evidence of loss It is for the Claimant to prove that had the alleged contract breach not taken place that they had gains prevented. The Claimant should be put to strict proof that their booking schedule was otherwise full. Here the Claimant is stuck between a rock and a hard place, an empty booking schedule indicates what they offer isn't competitive. A full booking schedule raises the question as to why they were unable to attract business for the specific date of your cancellation and whether they took reasonable steps to mitigate their losses (see point 3). You can now refer to the Claimant's letter indicating that they receive plenty of enquiries, so the fact that despite receiving potentially up to 3450 enquiries for business following your cancellation the fact no business was forthcoming is more likely because what was on offer simply was not competitive or enticing to the market. 3) Mitigation of loss The Claimant is expected to mitigate their losses. The Claimant should be put to strict proof that they took steps to do so, perhaps by way of offering a reduced rate in order secure business on the date of cancellation, reduce their losses and instead claim the difference. Even if the contract is deemed to be fair, which is unlikely, then the Claimant will have further difficulty in substantiating that a 4 business day delay is likely to have materially contributed to their pecuniary losses. What the Claimant doesn't appear to fully appreciate is that in order for the contractual term to be fair it must reasonably account for the losses incurred and not be used opportunistically as a penalty. I would put it to the judge that term as it is written does not form a genuine pre-estimate of loss but rather it is an opportunistic way for the Claimant to make money using a penalty, a penalty brought about because what their business has to offer isn't competitive enough to generate bookings. Pay close attention to the vehicles that were allegedly not in use that day, do they match that on your booking?

Provided you are absolutely sure that no reference is made to the alleged contract beyond paragraph 11 of the Claimant's WS then consider amending section 5, (comments in red.) NO CONTRACT FORMED 5a. The Claimant has failed to disclose or provide any evidence of any contract alleged to have been breached by the Defendant and are put to strict proof that any such contract exists. (The point being they have not evidenced the contract alleged to have been breached, no evidence of contract, no claim.) 5b. The signage at the location was unreadable (Exhibit 3). As a result of the unreadable signage the Defendant was not in a position to consider any alleged offer by the Claimant. The state of the signage was so poor that it did not constitute an offer of terms and as a result it was not possible for the Defendant to accept any alleged offer or to accept that any contract was on offer at all. This also shows that the replacement of damaged signs is not of importance to Armtrac. 5c The location at which the car was parked seemed as if it were a small, free car park for the pub, position directly opposite the spot. No signage suggested otherwise.

The point I was going to make if indeed the PDF uploaded is a true copy the Claimant's WS is despite the fact they have written war and peace as to why the contract entered into is enforceable they appear to have failed to evidence the actual contract and terms and conditions contained within upon which they are basing their claim. I agree exhibit 4 of the defence WS is good evidence indicating the poor quality of the signage however it also aids the Claimant as it enters into evidence on their behalf the contract on which they intend to rely. -disregard-

I presume brassnecked is referring to exhibit 4 within your WS (as they are paginated at the bottom of each page). Are there elements of the Claimant's WS missing in the uploaded PDF? Within their WS the Claimant refers to pages numbered up to 28 within their exhibit TM1, however within the uploaded PDF of what appears to include elements of exhibit TM1 the pages end at page 4.

The advice usually forthcoming is to first and foremost send British Gas a SAR. Click the link to read further. You can reach them at [email protected] You can also send the signed original to their address located in Berkshire.

Why not fill out the standard format request for information after receiving a NTK and post up a redacted copy. While you may have spotted errors in the speculative invoice you have received, perhaps other more experienced site members will be able to spot something else if you provide more information. Regards.

I think you need to be careful about your presumption that the parking company has no evidence to show the arrival time. The POPLA appeal was granted on the basis that no evidence was provided in response to the appeal. It is still plausible that the evidence does exist but for one reason or another it was not presented to POPLA in response to your appeal. As I have stated previously it may not be the case that their request was in fact unlawful and without a judgement to that effect you are risking a lot for potentially little gain. I'm not sure whether above you have alluded that you are not in fact the keeper of the vehicle - perhaps you could clarify this. I cannot see that a copy of the speculative invoice has been made available in this thread and thus whether it was actually served to you personally or to the keeper. This is important because if you are not the keeper of the vehicle then it is not in fact your data which has been requested.

The logic which leads to a breach of the Data Protection Act is if the company requesting the information of the keeper had no lawful basis or rather reasonable cause to request the information from the outset. This is one of the most comprehensive comments I have seen written on the subject. It is my understanding that in order to win any claim for breach of the Data Protection Act you would also have to prove they had no lawful basis to demand payment from you. What makes this more difficult is that whether there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you was never ruled on by a judge. It would be far easier to bring a claim for a breach of the Data Protection Act if you had already successfully defended a court claim for demand for payment of the PCN. It would appear the only way forward would be almost to have both cases heard at once, one of which is a case that was never due to be heard in court as the demand for payment was withdrawn. It could get very messy and while CAG clearly has a strong success rate with defending claims for payment with reference to a PCN there is still the so called judge lottery and I expect the lottery aspect of being successful in this claim would increase. You also risk - should it get that far - that the judge decides there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you and now not only is your claim for breach of the Data Protection Act dead in the water you could also end up owing the PCN which at the moment is cancelled. Your premise to help others is understandable but helping others requires that you help yourself and helping yourself requires ensuring that you will win. I think the general consensus at the moment is that is highly uncertain and would certainly need to be underpinned by substantial effort and high quality of the case you are able to present.

If you need to raise a complaint, raise it directly to their CEO Ben Tomasetti - [email protected] It will still go into the big pool of customer agents but it's another string to your bow to show later on that even the CEO doesn't respond to their e-mails if that turns out to be the case. No doubt the site team will be along shortly to outline a forthright approach to help you receive your money back. Nevermind it seems it is over before it has begun, in any case thank you for bringing to light 1st Central Insurance's business practices.

The quote highlighted in bold above is the entire premise upon which the parking industry issues speculative invoices. The business strategy is by and large, not founded on any lawful basis and should be considered an abuse of process, there are good reasons for not enabling such poor business practices or abuse. There is a principle here that goes beyond time and money and while I cannot speak for the founders of this site, that is generally the modus operandi of the people who give suggestion. Barrowboy comes across as if they may still actually work for the parking industry and if they do and haven't disclosed this then what they are suggesting is not entirely impartial. A review of the repeated and continued success of parking companies being defeated in Court by posters on this forum speaks to the fact Court is not necessarily the lottery you suggest. In fact there is a more plausible argument that the Court offers more possibilities to defend bogus speculative invoices, if it works in appeal it will work in Court, if it doesn't work in appeal it may still work in Court. I don't think this should devolve any further in order that this thread can remain focussed on helping the original poster so will not comment further except on that basis, clearly people will have questions given your extensive industry experience and it may benefit future readers to answer those queries as openly and fully as possible.

If Dave sends me a speculative invoice I don't appeal to him. I may in passing tell him to refer to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram, or more likely ignore him. I do not validate him or his bogus claim by appealing to some stooge or his mate Clive. Just because barrowboy was gainfully employed by such an organisation is in no way evidence of their legitimacy and what is more likely happening here is a case of Stockholm syndrome. It can't possibly be that my previous employer has no real basis in law to need to exist. I believe the advice barrowboy has given is the beginnings of an excellent defence should NCP ever be bothered to go to court. Barrowboy has also broadened the discussion and fully explained their reasoning for their course of action which can only be to the benefit of the original poster and future readers. However you may be understanding that the default stance of CAG is more forthright in its approach for lots of very good and lawful reasons. Just like all the Ombudsman services the appeals process can and probably should be avoided to fully enjoy ones lawful rights.

I think this has been commented on before by @LookingForInfo as the parking company attempting two bites of the cherry but instead has the affect of invalidating the PCN. Await their comments.

Which Act or subordinate legislation is it that imposes liability under statutory provision on the public making use of roads surrounding an airport? Or is it rather that the land is subject to a traffic authority?