Author Topic: Actual Court Papers Received  (Read 2878 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2023, 09:53:41 pm »
If the SAR response is incredibly long, there's no need to share the full thing. But Annex 1 would be of potential use.

Quote
Beavis made it easy for them to recover any amount whatever the circumstances?
No. They can't recover whatever they like, for example the commonly added debt recovery fees (usually around 70) are often thrown out when challenged correctly.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2023, 07:25:39 am »

As regards Annex 1, I don't understand how you can be so dismissive given that the claimant's evidence (ss6 and 7 of their Service Specification) brings its relevance front and centre.

I'm not sure why you think i'm coming across as dismissive.  I said that there is nothing that is stated as "Annex 1" but that I am happy to PM you the whole SAR in case it's hidden. What more can I do?

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2023, 06:46:06 pm »

Are we at cross purposes, I wonder.

A SAR is a request for your personal info but, as observed by others, they seem to have included the Service Spec of their contract for services.

IMO, this is meaningless without Annex 1 by virtue of paras. 3(d), 6 and 7.

We MUST see Annex 1.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2023, 09:36:42 am »
Perhaps I misunderstand then.  If not part of the SAR, how would I be expected to get Annex 1?  My understanding is that they are not required to give me information at this stage, although I could request it as part of my defence.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2023, 12:18:11 pm »
You posted the Service Spec in post #18, 26 October.

This refers to Annex 1 and sets its context and purpose.

You didn't post Annex 1.

If you don't have it and it's not part of their evidence then pl just say so.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2023, 01:19:00 pm »
He has:
 I said that there is nothing that is stated as "Annex 1"
They haven't included it in the SAR.

You could challenge them to produce a full and unredacted contract in the defence, including Annex 1.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2023, 01:43:36 pm »
He has:
I said that there is nothing that is stated as "Annex 1"
They haven't included it in the SAR.

You could challenge them to produce a full and unredacted contract in the defence, including Annex 1.

That is what I thought (and what I thought I had stated), but thanks for confirming.  I will request he contract in full as you suggest.

So far I understand the advice is to:

- Read the template defence as you referenced in your PM and adapt any relevant sections

- Request a full and unredacted contract including Annex 1


I know this doesn't seem to be meeting with much enthusiasm, but I am still keen to include a statement from the landowner's representative along the lines of "the driver had been advised to park in that position and we do not consider it to be an obstruction".  As the charge is for obstructive parking, it seems the crux of the matter is whether it actually was obstructive.  Given that this is hard to prove one way or the other, a statement from the landowner that they do not consider it obstructive should surely be worth something?

Thanks

*EDIT*

I would also appreciate confirmation on timescales.  The MCOL summary states:
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 16/10/2023

When would be the final day for submission of a defence?

Thanks
« Last Edit: November 07, 2023, 01:46:37 pm by dave-o »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2023, 02:18:15 pm »
What was the date of issue on the claim?

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2023, 05:31:28 pm »
This thread is so long I'm getting confused by what is the claimant's evidence to the court and what is their response to your SAR.

As regards what I've seen, I would focus on their standing to bring this case in their name:

1. No evidence that the contract is extant because according to what's been presented the term of 5 years ended on 31 August 2022. The parking charge notice  was issued after the end of this term and IMO it is not the court's task to infer that the claimant has authority to bring an action in their name when prima facie they do not. All they need to do is to present a letter from the Client, but it's not in evidence.

2. The Service Spec(which is incomplete with only a fraction of the 14 pages in evidence) takes precedence over the Terms and Conditions which aren't in evidence anyway, and the Spec states:

4.1(1) The client authorises First Parking to ..take such action....in accordance with the enforcement process..including issuing proceedings on the client's behalf.

7.1 The client authorises First Parking to take legal action to recover the outstanding parking charges.

Nothing here informs the court that proceedings may be brought in FP's name, but they are the claimant on their own behalf it would seem.

Annex 1 might clarify the issue about in whose name may proceedings be brought, but as it stands the Spec says 'on the client's behalf'.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2023, 10:15:56 am »
What was the date of issue on the claim?

I think this is it?

A claim was issued against you on 10/10/2023

Thank you HC Andersen, I appreciate your contractual points.

To be sure that I understand:

Quote
7.1 The client authorises First Parking to take legal action to recover the outstanding parking charges.

Nothing here informs the court that proceedings may be brought in FP's name, but they are the claimant on their own behalf it would seem.

7.1 says that they are authorised, but is your point that they are not authorised to bring proceedings in their own name, i.e. they can only (on this evidence) bring proceedings in the client's name?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2023, 10:39:39 am by dave-o »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2023, 10:57:22 am »
A claim was issued against you on 10/10/2023
The date of service is the fifth day after the issue date, so 15th October. As you acknowledged service, you have 28 days from the date of service to file your defence - by my reckoning that is 12th November. As that falls on a Sunday, your deadline will be 4pm the next working day, Monday 13th.

I'm personally always wary about submitting things too close to the deadline - if there are technical issues or similar, it gives you little time to resolve them.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2023, 11:00:45 am »
A claim was issued against you on 10/10/2023
The date of service is the fifth day after the issue date, so 15th October. As you acknowledged service, you have 28 days from the date of service to file your defence - by my reckoning that is 12th November. As that falls on a Sunday, your deadline will be 4pm the next working day, Monday 13th.

I'm personally always wary about submitting things too close to the deadline - if there are technical issues or similar, it gives you little time to resolve them.

Thank you.  I guess I can always submit further supporting documents at a later date?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Karma: +27/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2023, 11:19:17 am »
You can only submit one defence. Witness statement(s) and evidence documents are submitted later - have a thorough read of the MSE thread I linked to on page 1 of this thread to familiarise yourself with what you'll be submitting and when.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2023, 02:11:26 pm »

OP, you must see both references together. The first is clear i.e. in the client's name. In the absence of 4.1(1), 7.1 could be interpreted as giving authority to FP to recover parking charges in their name, but 4.1(1) is there and is clear. In addition, the Service Spec relates to a contract and there isn't evidence that this exists, as far as the written evidence shows this terminated in 2022 before the PCN was issued. 

Armed with this you, IMO you are perfectly entitled to question FP's authority to bring proceedings in their own name and absent Annex 1 I don't think the court could be satisfied on this point. 

In your defence you say that the claimant has no standing to bring these proceedings i.e. no landowner authority.

Maybe they will produce more evidence when it's their turn, remember what you've shown us appears to be their reply to your SAR...but if they bothered to include matters pertaining to their authority in this reply, then why not include the correspondence which shows that the contract was extended?

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2023, 02:38:02 pm »

OP, you must see both references together. The first is clear i.e. in the client's name. In the absence of 4.1(1), 7.1 could be interpreted as giving authority to FP to recover parking charges in their name, but 4.1(1) is there and is clear. In addition, the Service Spec relates to a contract and there isn't evidence that this exists, as far as the written evidence shows this terminated in 2022 before the PCN was issued. 

Armed with this you, IMO you are perfectly entitled to question FP's authority to bring proceedings in their own name and absent Annex 1 I don't think the court could be satisfied on this point. 

In your defence you say that the claimant has no standing to bring these proceedings i.e. no landowner authority.

Maybe they will produce more evidence when it's their turn, remember what you've shown us appears to be their reply to your SAR...but if they bothered to include matters pertaining to their authority in this reply, then why not include the correspondence which shows that the contract was extended?

This is all understood now, thank you.