Show Posts - allotment

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharingDWMB2 – thanks.Son had tried 2 avenues (pages 2 /3 shown in the above pdf) to elicit further details from claimant about the event in question, but claimant didn’t respond to either.Defence commences on page 4 of the pdf. On page 9 #15, para 2 reference is made to the restaurant because it’s a commonly held belief that tickets are simply sent out to the keeper of any car which parks adjacent to Nandos in order to collect a takeaway (even if there is no evidence that the driver gets out to collect the takeaway). Son believed that since his car is shown parked next to Nandos he was the victim of this. When the defence was written he only had the picture on the NTK to go on which shows his car parked next to Nandos and it was 15 months after the date of the event. Later, when witness statements were called for (Son’s WS starts on pdf page 14) he states on point #8 that he was not the driver.My own WS is on page 27, and it states that I was the driver.When claimant’s WS arrived there were additional pictures (pdf pages:44-46) which showed son leaving the car park in a different direction to the restaurant (so not going to Nandos). I assumed that those additional pictures rendered the comments about the restaurant irrelevant and that my input would remain as both witness and lay representative.Unless claimant produces even more pictures derived from the multitude of cameras in the car park to suggest otherwise, we assume that the claimant believes that son was the driver solely on the basis that he was standing next to the open driver’s door. What happens if claimant files a supplemental WS with more pictures or presents more at the hearing?

Ok, thanks for your assistance to date.It’s not clear if your statement “you defended with a load of detail that you should not have mentioned” refers to the defence para 1-14 (which you seem to be supportive of as a preliminary matter to have raised at that stage) or para 15:2 (which seems to be irrelevant) or para 17-41? Perhaps someone else could assist me on this point?Also, I would appreciate it if someone could answer the following:1.   If the PoC failed to abide by CPR 16.4(1)(a) then I’m not understanding how the additional information presented in the defence has changed that. Why might it not have gone to a hearing without that additional defence info, yet it is now going to a hearing because of it? Perhaps there is a stage in the process where an application can be made direct to the court in advance of defence being filed/served?2.   Presumably all the other arguments in the defence / WS about who was driving / Pofa / landowner authority (para 37)  / inflated claimed amount / etc are still solid?3.   I understand that it’s the claimant’s responsibility to distribute document bundles, does this happen on the day? Presumably we would be well advised to bring our own copies along with a  copy of rules regarding Lay Representatives?4.      How, exactly, do I request the judge to strike it out as a preliminary matter? is it just a case of bring it up right at the start of the hearing?Thanks

Apologies for not ticking the public box on Google drive - please see publicly accessible copy of the documents with missing page of the site boundary included here (site boundary is not displayed at the site) …https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharingThe picture on the NTK showed son exiting the car next to the restaurant. His defence did not state that he had parked and then visited the restaurant, just that he had visited the restaurant on other occasions and was thus ’a customer’ of the restaurant, & his understanding was that the offer of parking (and thus of a contract) was not extended to the restaurant’s staff or customers (see the big red section in the middle) so it was not even possible that he could have breached any agreed terms under any circumstances at all. In any event, additional pictures in claimants WS show him walking away from the car and not towards the restaurant. The site boundary is not displayed at the site, only in WS.Nothing on the sign mentions passengers leaving the site.The hearing is scheduled for 3rd July and the claimant paid the hearing fee on 20th May (before receiving our witness statements).

witness statements were due (and delivered) by 30th May.could defendant submit a supplemental WS about the preliminary matter re: CPR 16.4(1)(a) ?thanks again...

b789 -Thanks for the comments.I've learnt a little  more about Google Drive and the document is visible without download and is complete with the boundary picture which was missing earlier!https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharingThe defence broadly is the MSE template although advice wasn't sought there (or anywhere).Regarding the details that you say have weakened the defence, do you mean reference to the Nandos etc? Those comments resulted from the claimant's non-responses to the earlier requests for additional information.  WS statements crossed in the post.here is the boundary picture provided in claimant's WS - apologies that i missed it out of the previous file. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ErxC-YpZcxdF7758ZnQJJ_1Rztf-NzmW/view?usp=sharingThe contract from the landowner was requested in the defence and again in son's WS but was not provided in claimants WS.

here are the requested documents relating to the case in one pdf. all court deadlines were met by both parties and the case has been moved to son's local court with hearing listed for early Julyhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1vjL8etH4PgLiISoM8_TaUMQ8OAH7J4da/view?usp=sharingany comments appreciated

I appreciate the assistance and have collated all the requested documents into a multipage pdf with 45 pages and of 7.5mb total but can't find a way to upload it and the suggested hosting sites convey only the first page? 

Seeking some advice about acting as a lay representative for my son. Can I be both a lay rep and / or a witness depending upon the claimant’s case as presented at the hearing? The complication is that on two occasions very close to each other his car was parked in the same car park and since it took them 2 years to bring the claim, he doesn’t know which of the events the claim relates to and was thus not able to properly defend.The single picture on the ntk shows him standing next to the car and states ‘driver observed leaving the site’. On one of those occasions I was the driver and the car park sign stated that the driver must remain in the vehicle whilst the car was parked (I did remain in the vehicle whilst he went into a nearby shop = no breach). On the other occasion he was alone and parked the car then went into a restaurant which is on the limit of the car park. However, the sign specifically states that customers of said restaurant were not permitted to park there (thus no offer of contract was made to restaurant customers).In order to determine which event the claim related to so he could defend accordingly, he sent the claimant a formal letter pursuant to CPR 31.14 requesting further information (no reply) followed by a subject access request seeking disclosure of further information (no reply). He filed and served defence (based upon guidance here and elsewhere when PoC are vague requesting court to dismiss the case) followed by WS based upon the assumption that the claim related to the occasion when I was the driver. I also provided a WS stating the same.When claimant’s WS arrived it showed additional pictures of son’s car arriving in the car park and of him walking off-site but still doesn’t actually show who was driving the car so we still don’t know which occasion the claim relates too. However, the car park has lots of cameras around it and it’s possible that claimant will present even more pictures at the hearing which actually show that he is alone in the car when it was parked and therefore clarify which event the claim relates to.He’s not comfortable defending himself if the hearing goes ahead so I plan to act as a lay representative for him whilst also being a witness (though my witness statement would be irrelevant if the additional pictures showed that the claim is based upon the occasion when he went alone). I can’t find anything which states that a lay representative cannot also be a witness (or withdraw a witness statement during the hearing) but thought it wise to seek better-informed opinions and advice.