VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - double dipping - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ ***Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

There's the same error in 21.

 

To answer your question, yes it would be better to include an exhibit in 15. 

 

TBH I preferred your earlier slimmed-down version, but what do I know?

 

Don't worry if you send it slightly late, you'd be allowed a little leeway as a Litigant in Person.  However, if you can respect the court's deadline, it's best to.  Simply send 1st class - but get a free Certificate of Posting.  Also click that you want a return receipt when you e-mail the court their copy.

[lookinforinfo]

Your WS is very good and gets your points across very well.

 

You are probably better to include the document about ANPR camera faults rather then using a link. OOps I see Dave has already recommended that but it took me a while to complete this post as I was called away in the middle.

 

I think points 16 to 19 are a bit repetitive [perhaps you have caught Walli disease? ] You could deal with it by saying  at point 16 that the Claimant has admitted  not complying with PoFA Schedule 4 Keeper liability thus you as keeper cannot be pursued and eliminate 17, 18 and 19.

 

I would be inclined to rearrange your points though.

 

Double dipping,  which should be accepted will get the case stopped there and then so I would make that your first heading.

 

Also I would be inclined to move  your ANPR double dipping at the end of point 28 and make it point 29.

Then I would put in point 30 where you put them to strict proof that double dipping did not occur. If the Judge accepts that then case is over  

 

Next I would put in Breach Of Contract [points 13-15] if you think they are still necessary though I would perhaps head it NO breach of Contract.

 

Then I would separate your Signage from your Locus Standi as the Signage should be your next strongest point.

Followed by Double Recovery of Costs, Keeper Liability, the Contract and Locus Standi.

 

If your double dipping is not accepted, therefore you were not there all the time [or more precisely your phone was not there] then you could not have been the driver and so they fail on Keeper Liability.

[FTMDave]

Wonderful work - as per usual - from lookinforinfo.

[holmer444]

Apologies for the silence folks and thanks so much for all the input, really valued.

 

I won't bore you with the details, but printing issues meant I wasn't able to refine as per LFI's excellent post above, I did proof read before printing so had caught and corrected the mistakes.

 

I received an emailed version of the Claimant's WS from Walli last night (I hadn't given him my email, but presume he lifted it from the MCOL form?!), amusingly he added the wrong time for the hearing in his subject header which I'm planning to take some delight in mentioning if we get in front of a judge.

 

Do I return the favour (and copy him in) with the correct hearing time?

[dx100uk]

the court wouldn't be sending your pers details from their copy of the N180 as the sols get their own copy from you and you should have omitted phone/sig/email.

never mind.

 

can you scan the whole thing up to one mass PDF please.

 

if this is ELMS legal, it's worthy to note ELMS have dumped Simple simon on another recent claim yesterday.

[dx100uk]

hidden .

you MUST for your protection and us as CAG, under strict data protection and GDPR rules as we can be lawfully fined, carefully redact details like the claim number and your name/address

 

least of which is do you seriously want simon to find you here?

 

 

[dx100uk]

and Wali has used his weight of feathers argument again...

[FTMDave]

Lads & lasses,

 

Wali's WS is already on the thread at post 41.

[dx100uk]

On 14/05/2021 at 12:23, dx100uk said:

we will also need aLL of the exhibits..

 

other notes.

the contract was for 3yrs in 2011

there is no proof the client has paid VCS in the 2021 season nor the contract can simply roll by default past 2014..

 

what a stupid comment for his latest wally, Mr Wali, a supposed paralegal since their last one ran out the door in oct 2020 to make...(sic) this case could hinge on the weight of a single feather that tips the scales'.... i can see him soon leaving like the rest once he sees what crap simon is leading him into here.

i knew i'd seen it before...

[holmer444]

Supplementary statement received from Walli today, I'm having scanning problems at the minute, so the formatting is all off, but hopefully the content remains unaffected (and I've redacted the pertinent parts!).

 

His biggest issue seems to be that I haven't made a statement of truth?

 

As always any and all advice on how to respond is very welcome.

Supplementary claimant case.pdf

[dx100uk]

a simple mistake a litigant in person (member of joe public) makes quite often...not important.

dx

[brassnecked]

On the other hand Walli must dot every i and cross every t.

[holmer444]

Not sure he's dotted any i's or crossed any t's as have just noticed his latest correspondence (which came by email) was only sent to me and ELMS, but is addressed to the court. I fully appreciate it could have been sent to them separately, but the subject line doesn't suggest it's been forwarded.

 

I was tempted to think he may have been trying to be clever and throw me off guard, but given his rebuttal on the planning permission seems to be the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly...I'm not so sure  

[lookinforinfo]

I agree that Wali is treading on dangerous ground with regards to planning permission. The retail park does require planning permission for its signs and ANPR cameras. To say that the local Council would have contacted them were it needed is disengenuous. It is the responsibility of VCS to either apply for the permission themselves or get the land owener to do it. To repeat-it is not the responsibility of the Local Authority and never has been. So why Wali would say that I have no idea but you should definitely point it out as a contempt of Court since it has no basis in Law. And put him to strict proof that it did not require planning permission.

You have only been shown 1 page of the contract when there are a total of five pages. On the page you have there is no date and a Paul Curson is employed by jones Lang Lasalle but there is no link to Scottish Widows -presumably the land owner. In any event I can find many different Scottish Widow sites but not a single one for Scottish Widows investment property Trust which would lead one to believe that there is no such company, putting their contract in doubt.

 

 

[holmer444]

Looks like Monday's the day (as I've had no correspondence to the contrary), I've re-read my witness statement and feel I have my arguments clear in my head...is there anything else I need to be doing.checking/reading (I have the weekend to prep).

 

One thing I wasn't clear on - I've had to take the day off work to do this, should I win, can I make any sort of claim for costs, if so, what's the best way to ask?

[honeybee13]

I believe you have to ask the judge on the day about your costs, so best to have a schedule drawn up, including time off work and five hours preparation as an LiP, plus anything else.

 

Have a look in our Parking Successes forum for what other people have claimed.

 

Do you have your documents filed and tabulated so you can find them easily on Monday?

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

I have just come across something to help you win.

 

At 9] in their WS they claim that you agreed to the contract by entering the car park.. That is not right in your case. The entrance to the car park sign was not forming a contract but welcoming you and telling you that their T&Cs were inside the car park. So what that sign means  is that it was an offer to treat. In that case your silence is not an agreement that there is a contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felthouse_v_Bindley

 

That would not have been the case had their T&Cs been listed at the entrance but as they weren't your driving into the car park was not acceptance of their regulations. Take a copy of the actual case preferably not from Wikipedia and as it was heard back in 1862 one would have thought that any decent lawyer would have been aware of it .

 

Another 'mistake" by the para legal. How many chances do they get swearing what they say is truth when it patently isn't.

 

I think you can introduce that in court since you said that you didn't accept their contract and this is just another reason why not.

[FTMDave]

If you win, the judge should mention costs, and you should have two lists of costs prepared.  One with your normal costs such as time off work, travel expenses (I suppose nothing in this case if it's done on-line), printing and posting expenses, etc.  And then a second list with all the above plus extra sums for unreasonable behaviour.  IIRC the 5 x £19 preparation time would only be allowed for unreasonable behaviour, but I'm not sure, I've tried to look it up now but have got nowhere, hang on and see what the other regulars who know more have to say over the weekend.

 

Then if you win ask the judge for unreasonable behaviour costs since Simon knew full well that this was a case of double dipping and yet continued with his claim as he is a serial litigant who abuses the court system to intimidate motorists to give in and pay money they don't owe so as to avoid going to court (plus whatever other arguments come up on Monday).

 

The judge will either say "yes" or "no" to unreasonable costs and on the basis you read out one or the other lists of costs.

[holmer444]

How does this look?

 

Ordinary Cost

Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £148.25

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00

Sub Total - £163.25

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00

£ Total Costs Claimed - £258.25

[dx100uk]

You can only claim £90 loss of earnings

[holmer444]

That's disappointing, I wonder how much the judge earns per hour 

 

in that case I'll go with:

 

Ordinary Cost

Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £90.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00

Sub Total - £105.00

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00

£ Total Costs Claimed - £200.00

 

That's a nice round number...

[AndyOrch]

You will be expected to produce evidence of loss of earnings with a cover not from your employer.

[holmer444]

What would be acceptable here Andy? I can provide a copy of my contract of employment or a payslip, would either of these do? Issue I have is; I work for a large multi-national company, so can't just pop into the HR department and ask for copies of this sort of stuff. We have an online system that I can use to generate a pre-populated letter on headed paper, but that will only provide: 

 

- An employment reference letter

- Accommodation reference letter

- Mortgage reference letter

- Visa reference letter

Edited July 5, 2021 by holmer444

[AndyOrch]

Im not really sure what would be suitable.....but we have had cases were the judge wanted to see evidence of time taken off without pay.....you will have to think how you can produce something suitable.

 

Obviously they will not just awards costs of that amount without evidence.....you may have thrown a sickie or taken a days holiday

[holmer444]

Won 

 

Judge didn't accept any of the Claimant's arguments, but also didn't believe I demonstrated they had acted unreasonably so made no award of costs :-(, but if that's the worst thing that happens to me today, I can live with that .

 

Can I just thank everybody that took the time to respond and help me with this claim, it's very much appreciated.