DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112347--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 7, 2026, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you can get something written over the weekend, send it to
the relevant parties on Monday and essentially hope for the
best. There's sometimes a fair amount of leeway given to
litigants in person, so you might as well try.
--- Quote ---
> They will probably pull out anyway.
--- End Quote ---
Which solicitors (if any) are they using? VCS can be one of the
more stubborn ones who do actually turn up for hearings and even
routinely send their advocates to court with instructions to
seek permission to appeal if they lose.
#Post#: 112407--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 8, 2026, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Skeleton defence below.
Please quickly read up on how a defence should be presented -
there's plenty of other threads which demonstrate this.
I'm uncertain why the Court have requested Witness Statements so
early in the process when the hearing is almost 2 months away.
Anyhow, I think you'll be okay.
When did VCS provide their WS?
VCS Defence Points
And I will say;
That the claim is denied in its entirety and that absolutely no
debt is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant.
That it is accepted by the Defendant that they were the
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle on the material date - this is
not disputed.
That the Defendant robustly disputes that they have admitted
being the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
That as the vehicle keeper there is no legal requirement for me
to reveal who was driving and I will not be doing so.
That in his Witness Statement (WS), Mr Jake Burgess (JB) makes
numerous unsupported assertions that indicate that I was the
vehicle driver at the material time.
That in his evidence JB provides Exhibit 7 which is my initial
appeal enquiry to the parking operator - I accept that this was
sent by myself.
That in that appeal enquiry it is clearly shown that my appeal
was made by myself but purely as vehicle keeper - I would
specifically draw the Court's attention to the sentence on the
Exhibit 7 which states; "Note : Keeper was the selected choice."
That when making an appeal, the appellant is specifically asked
to choose the legal basis on which the appeal is made - the
choice being 'Driver' or 'Keeper' - in this instance it is clear
that I chose to make the appeal as keeper.
That, not withstanding the previous point, the wording in my
appeal enquiry is made in the third person - Whilst I made a
number of enquiries of the operator, I did not at any point
reveal who was driving at the material time - I simply question
the signage and specify that I understood that payment had been
made.
That in the second document of Exhibit 7 the operator appears to
deliberately claim that I had admitted to being the driver -
this appears to be an attempt to force liability onto a keeper
who has made no such admission in an appeal enquiry which was
specifically made as vehicle keeper - I believe that this point
demonstrates the Claimants predatory and bulling nature when
pursuing a private parking charge.
That, therefore, it appears very obvious that the Claimant is
not able prove who was driving at the material time.
That the Claimant's Witness Statement is actually fishing for
liability.
That, at point 21 in his WS, JB states that the Claimant also
believes that I was the driver 'because otherwise I would
nominated another driver' - this point is firmly rebutted on the
basis that there is no legal requirement for a vehicle keeper to
provide driver information to a private parking operator.
That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS Ltd
v Edward if required - this case demonstrates that the Claimant
is required to provide specific evidence to prove who was
driving and that no assumption can be made as to who was driving
- the same case also preserves the keepers right 'to say
nothing' when a Claimant asks a keeper to identify a driver.
That, further to the previous point, the provision of driver
details to the operator would, on the balance of probabilities,
be the provision of the details of a family member / close
friend / work colleague etc - why would a keeper provide those
details when there was no legal requirement to do so?
That, based on the above, the claim made by JB in his WS
regarding the identification of the driver is demonstrably
false.
That, in the alternative, the Claimant appears to state that
they will rely on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in
order try and shift liability from an unknown driver to the
vehicle keeper.
That liability under PoFA is robustly denied.
That in order to invoke keeper liability under PoFA, the
Claimant must adhere to a particularly strict set of rules and
regulations - these rules and regulations are set out in the
legislation itself - most of these rules and regulations set out
the requirements of information which MUST be contained on the
parking operator issued Notice to Keeper (NtK) - this appears to
be accepted by the Claimant.
That the Claimant states that their NtK is compliant with PoFA.
That this assertion is rebutted by the Defendant - the operator
issued NtK is not complaint as it omits strictly required
mandatory wording.
That the legislation demands that the NtK is TOTALLY compliant
in order for keeper liability to be invoked and, therefore, the
missing mandatory wording is immediately fatal to the Claimant's
reliance on PoFA to transfer liability onto the keeper.
That, in particular, the parking operators NtK is not compliant
with the requirements of PoFA because it fails to provide all
the information which is required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(f).
That Paragraph 9(2)(f) 'warning to keeper' requires that the
operator issue the keeper with a series of warnings which set
out the conditions of the legislation.
That in this instance the wording presented by the parking
operator does not warn the keeper that the operator can only
rely on PoFA if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met.
That Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that;
The Notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
That the sentence "if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met" is missing from the Claimants NtK - the
legislation states that the NtK MUST contain this information if
this NtK is to be relied upon by the Claimant.
That liability under PoFA is therefore denied.
That the Claimant now has no legal route by which they can hold
me liable.
That I contend that the Claimant may already be aware of the
PoFA issues with their NtKs and this therefore explains the
Claimant's keenness to persuade the Court that I had admitted
liability as the vehicle driver.
That not withstanding all the above, I reasonably suggest that
the Claimant's behaviour in this matter is clearly predatory in
nature given the tightness of the car park timings as set out in
the Claimant's evidence.
That the Claimant is clearly using some kind of 'time on site'
calculation in order to prove the alleged overstay in a
situation where the 'time of site' argument is particularly
tight when all things are considered.
That 'time on site' does not actually demonstrate the true time
that a vehicle was actually 'parked' especially in circumstances
where the car park is busy.
That this claim would clearly fall under the de minimis
principle - this additionally demonstrates the predatory nature
of the Claimant.
That the Claimant's own car park timings show that this dispute
is actually a dispute over just a few minutes.
That the Claimant's own evidence shows that the driver purchased
2 hours parking and that the paid parking expired at 14.36 on
the day in question - the parking operator Code of Practice
specifies that drivers should be given a minimum of 10 minutes
grace period at the end of a parking session - with the
additional 10 minutes minimum the expiry time becomes 14.46 -
the Claimant's own evidence shows the driver leaving the site at
14.49 - therefore the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for
what amounts to an extra 3 or 4 minutes on site.
#Post#: 112535--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: m_odwong@hotmail.com
Date: March 9, 2026, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Intercity, could you have a quick review of this draft
defense? VCS provided their witness statement a day before it
was due (on the 26th of Feb):
Background
1. The claim is denied in its entirety and I deny that any debt
is owed to the Claimant. It is accepted that I was the
registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date. The
Claimant has produced no evidence capable of establishing that I
was the driver.
Driver Identity
2. The Claimant asserts within the witness statement of Mr Jake
Burgess that I admitted to being the driver. This assertion is
incorrect. The only document relied upon by the Claimant in
support of this claim is the appeal enquiry contained within
Exhibit 7 of their evidence bundle.
3. I accept that the appeal enquiry was submitted by me. However
it was submitted strictly in my capacity as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. The appeal system requires the appellant
to select whether the appeal is being made as the driver or as
the keeper and in this case the option “Keeper” was clearly
selected.
4. The wording of the appeal itself refers to the driver in the
third person and contains no admission as to the identity of the
driver. At no stage have I admitted to being the driver.
5. Mr Burgess also suggests that I must have been the driver
because I did not nominate another individual. This suggestion
is legally incorrect. There is no statutory obligation requiring
a vehicle keeper to identify the driver to a private parking
operator.
6. I rely upon the persuasive authority of Vehicle Control
Services Ltd v Edward which confirmed that a parking operator
must provide evidence of driver identity and cannot simply
assume that the registered keeper was the driver.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
7. The Claimant alternatively seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) in order to
transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper. Liability under PoFA is denied.
8. In order to rely upon PoFA, a parking operator must comply
strictly with the statutory requirements set out within Schedule
4. These requirements include the inclusion of specific
mandatory wording within the Notice to Keeper.
9. The Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant fails to include
all of the mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(f). In particular the notice fails to include the wording
that the creditor will have the right to recover the parking
charge from the keeper “if all the applicable conditions under
this Schedule are met”.
10. As the statutory wording is incomplete the Notice to Keeper
is not compliant with PoFA and the Claimant cannot transfer
liability to the registered keeper.
Grace Period and Minimal Overstay
11. The Claimant’s own evidence demonstrates that the driver
purchased two hours of parking and that the paid parking period
expired at approximately 14:36.
12. The relevant parking industry Code of Practice requires that
motorists be allowed a minimum grace period of ten minutes to
leave a car park after the expiry of paid parking time. Applying
that grace period the relevant expiry time becomes approximately
14:46.
13. The Claimant’s own evidence shows that the vehicle exited
the site at approximately 14:49. The alleged breach therefore
amounts to approximately three minutes beyond the minimum grace
period.
14. The alleged breach is trivial and falls within the legal
principle of de minimis non curat lex. Unlike the circumstances
in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, this is a paid car
park where the driver purchased a valid parking session. The
alleged overstay amounts to only a few minutes beyond the
applicable grace period. In these circumstances there is no
evidence of any legitimate commercial justification for
enforcing a £100 charge, particularly where the parking tariff
had already been paid.
ANPR Time Versus Parking Time
15. The Claimant relies upon ANPR timestamps showing the time
the vehicle entered and exited the site. These timestamps
represent the time on site rather than the actual time the
vehicle was parked.
16. Drivers entering a busy car park must locate a parking
space, manoeuvre the vehicle and later return to the vehicle
before exiting the site. The Claimant’s calculation therefore
does not accurately represent the time the vehicle was parked.
Signage and Contract Formation
17. The Claimant relies upon signage at the site to assert that
a binding contract was formed with the driver. However the
signage exhibited within the Claimant’s bundle raises several
issues.
18. The signage states that motorists should refer to “full
Terms and Conditions signs located at the Pay and Display
machines”. This means that the full contractual terms are not
displayed at the entrance to the car park. The Supreme Court in
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] confirmed that for a parking
charge to be enforceable the terms must be clear and prominently
displayed so that motorists have fair notice of them before
parking.
19. The signage also states that “Any Driver/Registered Keeper
remaining in this car park 10 minutes after entry agree in full
to the Terms & Conditions”. This wording is problematic because
a registered keeper cannot enter into a contract simply by the
presence of a vehicle. Contract law requires that the driver, as
the person capable of accepting contractual terms, must be the
party entering into the contract.
20. The wording therefore attempts to impose contractual
liability upon a registered keeper who has not entered into any
contract with the operator. This type of wording has been
criticised in multiple parking cases where operators have
attempted to extend contractual liability beyond the driver.
Landowner Authority
21. The signage at the site clearly states that Excel Parking
Services Ltd manage and control the car park. The Claimant in
this case is Vehicle Control Services Ltd which is a separate
legal entity.
22. The Claimant relies upon a document titled “Leaseholder
Witness Statement” which asserts that Excel instructed Vehicle
Control Services Ltd to manage parking at the site. However the
underlying lease agreement has not been produced and the
document amounts only to an unsupported assertion.
23. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has
the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce
parking charges and to pursue this claim.
Additional Charges
24. The claim includes additional sums beyond the original
parking charge. Such additional sums are commonly described as
debt recovery costs.
25. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) the court
held that such additional charges were not recoverable and
amounted to an abuse of process.
Conclusion
26. The Claimant has failed to establish driver liability.
27. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
28. The alleged breach concerns a trivial overstay largely
within recognised grace periods.
29. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has proper
authority from the landowner.
30. For all of these reasons I respectfully request that the
Court dismiss the claim.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true.
#Post#: 112558--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 9, 2026, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not blowing my own trumpet here but I would have transcribed my
defence points word for word in the WS.
The idea is to present evidence in a certain way and also to
'make hay' in terms of the behaviour of the claimant.
I am not saying that you should not add additional points but in
this case those addition points are diluting the strength of the
main defence points which are both potential winners in their
own right.
There is an art to this which is hard to explain.
Make the WS too big and you risk i) pi$$ing the Judge off and,
ii) looking like you are including frivolous defence points.
#Post#: 112560--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 9, 2026, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Not blowing my own trumpet here but I would have transcribed
my defence points word for word in the WS.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would recommend presenting them in the first person for a WS.
#Post#: 112656--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: m_odwong@hotmail.com
Date: March 10, 2026, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I'll remove the ANPR Time and Signage Contract formation
sections as the former is already covered, and the latter a bit
of a weak argument. However, isn't it valid to raise the
question of whether they do have the proper authority to issue
and enforce parking charges given they only produced a witness
statement and not the actual contract? Also, how about the
paragraph regarding the additional charges, it's my
understanding they shouldn't be able to claim these additional
expenses?
From the guidance provided by the court in the Notice of
Allocation letter, they have requested the witness statement to
be set out in numbered paragraphs, and which I had misread to be
in first person, but actually it states here in the witness's
own language.
I think i would prefer keeping it in first person though if
that's suitable for a WS.
#Post#: 112686--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 10, 2026, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The 'first person' is generally regarded to be the correct way.
However, it is VERY important to remember that it is essential
that the driver is never revealed and therefore the first person
wording needs to be particularly precise when discussing certain
points since writing in the first person could easily be
regarded as an admission that you were at least present - the
joys of the English language!
Bear in mind that the Judge will know that you are a litigant in
person and, as such, the Judge accepts that your submission
might not be perfect in that respect.
#Post#: 112688--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 10, 2026, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A lot of Judge's like double spacing so I added that.
Obviously make sure all formal details are set out in the
header.
I will say;
1. That the claim is denied in its entirety and that absolutely
no debt is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant.
2. That it is accepted by the Defendant that they were the
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle on the material date - this is
not disputed.
3. That the Defendant robustly disputes that they have admitted
being the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
4. That as the vehicle keeper there is no legal requirement for
me to reveal who was driving and I will not be doing so.
5. That in his Witness Statement (WS), Mr Jake Burgess (JB)
makes numerous unsupported assertions that indicate that I was
the vehicle driver at the material time.
6. That in his evidence JB provides Exhibit 7 which is my
initial appeal enquiry to the parking operator - I accept that
this was sent by myself.
7. That in that appeal enquiry it is clearly shown that my
appeal was made by myself but purely as vehicle keeper - I would
specifically draw the Court's attention to the sentence on the
Exhibit 7 which states; "Note : Keeper was the selected choice."
8. That when making an appeal, the appellant is specifically
asked to choose the legal basis on which the appeal is made -
the choice being 'Driver' or 'Keeper' - in this instance it is
clear that I chose to make the appeal as keeper.
9. That, not withstanding the previous point, the wording in my
appeal enquiry is made in the third person - Whilst I made a
number of enquiries of the operator, I did not at any point
reveal who was driving at the material time - I simply question
the signage and specify that I understood that payment had been
made.
10. That in the second document of Exhibit 7 the operator
appears to deliberately claim that I had admitted to being the
driver - this appears to be an attempt to force liability onto a
keeper who has made no such admission in an appeal enquiry which
was specifically made as vehicle keeper - I believe that this
point demonstrates the Claimants predatory and bulling nature
when pursuing a private parking charge.
11. That, therefore, it appears very obvious that the Claimant
is not able prove who was driving at the material time.
12. That the Claimant's Witness Statement is actually fishing
for liability.
13. That, at point 21 in his WS, JB states that the Claimant
also believes that I was the driver 'because otherwise I would
nominated another driver' - this point is firmly rebutted on the
basis that there is no legal requirement for a vehicle keeper to
provide driver information to a private parking operator.
14. That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS
Ltd v Edward if required - this case demonstrates that the
Claimant is required to provide specific evidence to prove who
was driving and that no assumption can be made as to who was
driving - the same case also preserves the keepers right 'to say
nothing' when a Claimant asks a keeper to identify a driver.
15. That, further to the previous point, the provision of driver
details to the operator would, on the balance of probabilities,
be the provision of the details of a family member / close
friend / work colleague etc - why would a keeper provide those
details when there was no legal requirement to do so?
16. That, based on the above, the claim made by JB in his WS
regarding the identification of the driver is demonstrably
false.
17. That, in the alternative, the Claimant appears to state that
they will rely on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in
order try and shift liability from an unknown driver to the
vehicle keeper.
18. That liability under PoFA is robustly denied.
19. That in order to invoke keeper liability under PoFA, the
Claimant must adhere to a particularly strict set of rules and
regulations - these rules and regulations are set out in the
legislation itself - most of these rules and regulations set out
the requirements of information which MUST be contained on the
parking operator issued Notice to Keeper (NtK) - this appears to
be accepted by the Claimant.
20. That the Claimant states that their NtK is compliant with
PoFA.
21. That this assertion is rebutted by the Defendant - the
operator issued NtK is not complaint as it omits strictly
required mandatory wording.
22. That the legislation demands that the NtK is TOTALLY
compliant in order for keeper liability to be invoked and,
therefore, the missing mandatory wording is immediately fatal to
the Claimant's reliance on PoFA to transfer liability onto the
keeper.
23. That, in particular, the parking operators NtK is not
compliant with the requirements of PoFA because it fails to
provide all the information which is required by PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(f).
24. That Paragraph 9(2)(f) 'warning to keeper' requires that the
operator issue the keeper with a series of warnings which set
out the conditions of the legislation.
25. That in this instance the wording presented by the parking
operator does not warn the keeper that the operator can only
rely on PoFA if the parking operator's NtK meets all the
applicable conditions under the Schedule.
26. That Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that;
The Notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
27. That the sentence "if all the applicable conditions under
this Schedule are met" is missing from the Claimants NtK - the
legislation states that the NtK MUST contain this information if
this NtK is to be relied upon by the Claimant.
28. That liability under PoFA is therefore denied.
29. That the Claimant now has no legal route by which they can
hold me liable.
30. That I contend that the Claimant may already be aware of the
PoFA issues with their NtKs and this therefore explains the
Claimant's keenness to persuade the Court that I had admitted
liability as the vehicle driver when no such liability was ever
admitted.
31. That not withstanding all the above, I reasonably suggest
that the Claimant's behaviour in this matter is clearly
predatory in nature given the tightness of the car park timings
as set out in the Claimant's evidence.
32. That the Claimant is clearly using some kind of 'time on
site' calculation in order to prove the alleged overstay in a
situation where the 'time of site' argument is particularly
tight when all things are considered.
33. That 'time on site' does not actually demonstrate the true
time that a vehicle was actually 'parked' especially in
circumstances where the car park is busy.
34. That this claim would clearly fall under the de minimis
principle - this additionally demonstrates the predatory nature
of the Claimant.
35. That the Claimant's own car park timings show that this
dispute is actually a dispute over just a few minutes.
36. That the Claimant's own evidence shows that the driver
purchased 2 hours parking and that the paid parking expired at
14.36 on the day in question - the parking operator Code of
Practice specifies that drivers should be given a minimum of 10
minutes grace period at the end of a parking session - with the
additional 10 minutes minimum the expiry time becomes 14.46 -
the Claimant's own evidence shows the driver leaving the site at
14.49 - therefore the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for
what amounts to an extra 3 or 4 minutes on site.
37. The claim includes additional sums beyond the original
parking charge. Such additional sums are commonly described as
debt recovery costs.
38. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) the court
held that such additional charges were not recoverable and
amounted to an abuse of process.
39. That Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) reinforces the previous
point since the legislation specifically states that the parking
operator will (when discussing the parking charge), "have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as
remains unpaid" - in this instance the Claimant is clearly
trying to recover far more than the amount that remains unpaid.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true.
#Post#: 116627--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: m_odwong@hotmail.com
Date: April 21, 2026, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It looks like VCS have no intention of dropping the case as they
have submitted a supplementary witness statement
HTML https://pdfhost.io/v/yRM5yjdbC6_Supplementary_Witness_Statement_-_pag
HTML https://pdfhost.io/v/yRM5yjdbC6_Supplementary_Witness_Statement_-_pag<br
/>in response to my WS. I don't see anything new raised there,
so
doesn't look like it needs responding back.
Is there anything in particular I should be aware of for the
hearing, which is next week (27th of April), and are there any
general tips you could offer, and what to expect?
I presume I'll have to provide an oral argument, which I think
I'd just summarise my position as follows:
1) Claimant has failed to prove that I was the driver.
2) They have not complied with the strict requirements of PoFA,
so cannot pursue me as keeper.
3) The alleged breach is trivial, only three minutes beyond
grace period when considering actual parking time, not ANPR
timestamps.
4) The Claimant has failed to produce the lease or any evidence
demonstrating that VCS has authority from the landowner to issue
and enforce parking charges.
Does that sound reasonable, anythin to add/remove?
#Post#: 116628--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS - Parked after expiry time - Powis Car Park, Woolwich
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 21, 2026, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> It looks like VCS have no intention of dropping the case
--- End Quote ---
VCS are one of the operators that actually goes all the way to
hearings more often than many.
I think you would be wise to consider in advance how you will
answer any questions relating to this new WS. At face value, a
defence that in fair part relies on accusations of the claimant
failing to comply with the CPR is somewhat weakened by the
defendant also failing to comply with the same.
--- Quote ---
> Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the Defendant
simply waited for my Company’s Statement before addressing the
Claim in its
> entirety.
--- End Quote ---
Again, at face value, not an unreasonable conclusion, but on the
other side of the coin, a defendant can only respond to the
allegations levelled against him. Part of your argument is that
the PoC were too sparse for you to respond in much detail, so
you were unable to file a more substantive response until such
time as you properly understood what their arguments were going
to be.
This case may depend somewhat on which judge you get on the day.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page