I'm fairly sure a witness statement is essentially an elaboration of the points mentioned within your defence? Thus meaning you cannot introduce new evidence without permission of the court (I.e. Points of law/arguments that weren't present within your defence), otherwise parties would be able to ambush at the last moment. You've missed a big point which I've used to have a couple of CEL and BW Legal claims struck out, is that the claimant doesn't correctly sign the claimform, they sign it in the name of their company, which isn't allowed.

Why aren't you listening? Stop messing around with worthless warranty companies that have no interest in paying out, send the invoice to the dealership attached to a letter before claim, allowing them 30 days to pay it, if they fail, then issue a County Court claim against them. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is abundantly clear in that it sets out a retailer has to repair any defects within the first 6 months, the dealership cannot "opt out", that's the law. Report them to trading standards also.

Surely if you purchase a vehicle from a limited company, then the contract exists between the limited company (being a separate entity from any actual person) and the consumer, thus meaning essentially the directors wouldn't be liable unless a personal guarantee was signed in some way?

"a 3 month warranty", don't you just hate it when dealers state this, what a load of nonsense. You are correct in that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 affords you the right to reject faulty goods within the first 30 days, I always say a simple approach is the best approach. Send a letter rejecting the car, stating why, if no refund then issue a letter before claim against the dealership, if they still don't play ball, then issue a claim against the dealership.

UK insurance system for you unfortunately, probably one of the biggest scams going right now is car insurance. If insurers aren't using rubbish bodyshops charging 3 times more for insurance jobs, or seeking £160 per day car hire on a rubbish hire car, they're engaging ambulance chasers to try to pursue you for injuries that never occured. The whole system is a disgrace to be honest.

SCS Law do regularly issue claims on behalf of UKPC, however if they're stating to pay DRP, then as above, ignore and focus on communication with UKPC. I hate to say it, but for 35 tickets, I guarantee you that UKPC will issue a claim, it's a shame that you didn't respond to each one and obtain a POPLA code, it would've cost them £27 plus VAT per code. You should also write to the DVLA requesting the dates of when UKPC requested your data, they must make a separate application each time.

The retailer (the car dealership) is responsible to fix any faults within the first 6 months (the first 30 days afford the consumer the right to reject the vehicle if a fault occurs). Stop messing around with other companies, you should simply be going after the dealership. Personally I'd give them one chance to make payment, then I'd issue a letter before claim affording them the opportunity to pay the invoice, failure to do so should lead to proceedings being issued. I retail higher end vehicles for my own business, the law is very clear on the obligations dealers have to their customers. I'd say a majority in the motor trade will issue a pointless, worthless warranty to try to divert their obligations to customers, these ADR schemes are utterly pointless and biased towards the dealerships. When I get the odd fault on a vehicle I've retailed, I'll ensure its repaired asap at no cost to the customer and as quickly as possible.

Communicate to UKPC by post, so everything is in writing. That's a start, send UKPC a copy showing that the landowner/leaseholder granted you the authorisation to park, UKPC signage will be forbidding in that it doesn't offer a genuine service to those who park without a permit, essentially bringing the contract into question as per PCM UK Ltd vs Christopher Bull and 2 others 2016 and UKPC vs Sean Masterson 2016.

Ignoring was a terrible idea, on what planet does "speaking to them is accepting their terms"? You accepted their terms when a contract was made when you parked your vehicle on private land, the contract was entered into by way of your performance (parking and remaining on the land in question), the terms of this agreement were set out and communicated via the signage. UKPC are litigious, and for the amount you claim is owed, will almost certainly issue a claim against you shortly, the fact that you've ignored 35 tickets will go down like a lead balloon in court. In response to your numbered points, having actively fought parking companies; 1. I cannot see them accepting half, and I certainly cannot see them allowing you to pay it off over a year. The drivers identity in cases like this isn't relevant, when you have 35 tickets, a court will most likely find on the balance of probability that you were driving on all occasions (as per a case in Scotland where a lady found herself with a £25k judgment). Assuming UKPC are using Debt Recovery Plus, then you are correct in that DRP have no power. 2. If you had consent to park, then you need to get this in writing and be ready to send UKPC a letter outlining this asap.

Insurers are all fiddling claims, the whole industry is a multi billion pound [problem] that we're forced to pay. Simple bumps that cause absolutely no damage end up having bills that are in the thousands because the insurers body shop will inflate what work needs doing at an inflated price, then the hire car companies get a slice of the pie with inflated car hire costs, and of course the personal injury claim because the human body is unable to cope with the stresses of a 5mph collision. I have property abroad in Europe, in which the country in question cars are insured and not people, there's no claim culture, no personal injury parasites, everything is good value for money. Makes you wonder what is wrong with rip off Britain nowadays.

Absolutely. Once you've rejected, stop using the car immediately, it's their obligation to pick the vehicle up at their cost, don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. I run a small business in the motor trade, any self respecting car seller will stand by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfortunately a large number of businesses think their customers are gullible and will swallow the costs of any repairs. Yes, so you send a letter and email rejecting the car, stating why (I.e. The problems listed), that you reject inaccordance with s.20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that the vehicle is available for them to collect. If they fail, then issue a Letter Before Claim giving them 30 days to pay the money you're owed, outlining that a claim will be made. Failure to pay after 30 days, go straight into MCOL and file a claim against the company.

Stop faffing around. s.20 Consumer Rights Act 2015 rejection (assuming you're within the 30 day time limit), write to explain that you're rejecting, the car can be collected by them. Ask for a refund of all monies, failure to refund, issue a Letter Before Claim and then after 30 days, issue a County Court claim against the company. If you're within 30 days to 6 months, then you can offer an opportunity for them to repair, they get one chance at this, failure to rectify the issue means you can reject.

Apologies for the length of this post. I'm looking for some opinions in relation to a Road Traffic Collision that happened over a year ago. I was driving home along a national speed limit road, the road extends to a straight that is roughly 1 and a half mile in length affording you great visibility ahead. I was behind two slower vehicles (the vehicle infront of the line was a pick up truck in which the driver was on his phone), estimated speed was 45mph. I overtook these two cars after planning ahead and seeing that no vehicles were oncoming, I checked my mirrors, blind spot, indicated and glanced again at my mirrors before initiating the overtake. As I passed the first vehicle, I noticed a car pull into a small junction on the right hand side, at this point I was committed into passing the pick up, however the car that entered the junction (closed junction, single track country road), didn't stop at the junction and rolled out into the road assuming it was clear to the left (they were afforded roughly 900 meters of visibility to the left), fortunately I was able to brake and turn avoiding a direct collision with this vehicle, however a glancing blow was made. After exchanging details everybody left. Fast forward to a year later, I've received a letter from a solicitor representing me saying that they will be trying to negotiate a 20% liability against me and 80% against the other driver, or at worst 50/50. I've had a look at the potential case law that's being used and the arguments for and against me, however I've made the following submissions in my favor; - I started my overtake before any vehicle had entered the hidden junction, there was no view of this junction due to foliage, and no warning signs, road markings indicated that overtaking wasn't prohibited and the lines on the road didn't get closer indicating a hazard ahead. - I had ascertained priority over traffic joining from a side road, and was proceeding ahead on the main road. - The other party was afforded excellent visibility at the mouth of the junction and was required to give way to traffic already on the carriageway, by failing to do so committed an offence under s.36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. - Powell v Moody 1966 isn't applicable as the circumstances are different, this case surrounds a motorcyclist who was passing a queue of traffic on a dual lane road, and the vehicle emerging from the junction was given indication to do so by a HGV, the motorcyclist was negligent because there was high risk of coming into conflict with other road users. I accept one argument against me; - Overtaking near a junction is negligent because it can put you into conflict with other vehicles, and whilst it's not illegal, it can be considered negligent. Any thoughts or opinions would be most welcome! Many thanks!

Unfortunately, minor transgressions with the law aren't always considered "negligent", for example, there's case law that supports the view that whilst speeding is against the law, it's not always negligent to exceed the speed limit. It's your word against theirs, insurance companies will decide on the facts available, one huge factor is that a vehicle hit the side of your car when you started your overtake, this indicates to most people that you started your maneuver and ended up colliding with the other vehicle which was well established in their maneuver, on a legal position of the road at the time it happened. Looking at the diagram and what you've said, anything less than full liability is a good result, you're negligent because you've had a collision with passing traffic that's hit the rear side of your car whilst overtaking, regardless of where the vehicle started the overtake, you'll struggle to prove the fact that the other party did something contrary to the law, whereas the provable evidence is that you have damage to the side of your vehicle, as does the other party, indicating a side impact with a car that was overtaking in a legal position at the time of contact. Ever since my first collision earlier this year (non fault, overtaking a car on a straight country road, car didn't see me and pulled out from a small muddy track road into my path, fortunately minor damage), it's changed my manner of driving, defensive driving is best practice nowadays with the morons we share the road with, that and a dashboard camera that can prove my innocence should I need it.

If it's found that you changed your road positioning when a vehicle was overtaking and you made contact, then I'd imagine the insurance companies will find against you, especially when you state the collision occurred to the side of your vehicle, meaning a quick glance in your mirror would've been sufficient to have seen passing traffic, I'd imagine this puts you at fault. The best outcome by the sounds of it is that it goes 50/50, however, I'd imagine they'll go for full liability against you unfortunately. You shouldn't be overtaking without checking your mirrors and quickly glancing over your shoulder to check it's clear, then signal, then start the overtake.

As someone said above, it would still be classed as "theft", you appropriate property from another with the intention to permanently deprive them of it, I believe the "loss" aspect and returning them are irrelevant as far as the classification of theft goes under the Theft Act 1968. Section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 changed how low value shop theft was dealt with, I'd presume by returning the items it'd just be dealt with at a store level, however it would probably depend upon what you actually stole. It's good that you feel bad for doing what you did, maybe you need to address the underlying cause of this behaviour.

Can a creditor that's reported a default on CallCredit (but not Equifax or Experian) in 2013, suddenly start recording the default on Equifax at the start of 2017? Thanks.

I had a road traffic collision in February this year, very minor incident (I was overtaking a vehicle on a straight bit of road when as I almost completed my maneuver, a car emerged from a hidden single track country road to the right without stopping/looking). I was fortunate in that I was able to avoid a full force impact into the side of the car, and managed to make a very minor glancing blow. All parties exchanged details and left, no injuries, really minor damage. I haven't heard anything since February until today, in which my insurers have said no parties have pursued a claim, and because I didn't claim off my policy, the claim has been settled as a non fault claim with no affect to my no claims bonus. I'm presuming this is the end of the matter?

Who is the correct defendant? A motor vehicle was purchased privately a few days ago, the car was advertised as being "mechanically sound" with no issues. Fast forward 24 hours, the car fails to start as the starter motor makes a grinding sound, car is rocked in gear and it starts with no issue. The car was advertised on half somebody who didn't speak English very well, the person advertising it said on several occasions the car ran absolutely fine with no issues (copy of the advert has been kept, as has a copy of the messages exchanged). Is a claim issued against the person who received the bank transfer, or against the person who advertised the vehicle and exchanged messages? Many thanks.

I've got the direct details and I've sent yet another code over to them. I'm worried they're going to void my policy, I have nothing to hide and my license is clean.

It's really strange, the DVLA have the codes as being viewed on the 11th February, 17th February and 20th February, and the insurance company are the only ones to have the code, so it's not possible anyone else has viewed it. They denied receiving my last email, even though I have proof it was sent and delivered on the 15th February 2017 at 14:31. I will try calling them, it seems strange how they've accepted all my other proofs, yet deny checking these codes. I get the feeling that they're looking to void my policy to avoid having to deal with the claim, and it's unbelievably frustrating when I can see they have checked the codes.

I'm seeking some advice. I took out a new insurance policy last month as my previous cover had ended and I didn't accept their renewal qoute. 2 weeks after taking out the policy, I was involved in a road traffic collision, which is being dealt with. The insurance company wrote to me requesting proof of documents, which I duly sent off via email. They've stated everything is fine, except the DVLA check code, which they're denying that they have viewed it as the code is "invalid". I've sent them 3 codes now, all of which they have viewed according to the DVLA. However, they are denying this and are threatening to void my policy if I do not produce a code. It seems to me that they're trying it on, it's really frustrating because I can see that they have viewed the codes. Does anyone have any advice? I'm stressed out enough as it is with having to prove my innocence in relation to the traffic collision, and now I'm being threatened with having the policy voided even though I've done everything that they have asked.

There's quite a few cases being struck out when Gladstones have issued the claim, as they fail to provide detailed particulars of claim, and breach Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. I believe the process for applying for a strike out, is obtaining an N224 form, and asking that the claim be struck out, there's some information on the Parking Pranksters blog on this process, as well as some strike out orders you can print off and attach to the application. I believe a sum of £100 is payable for the application mind. Other's may advise further.

Exactly. Hence why I stated the defence was nonsense, the case law quoted isn't relevant to your claim.

Point 14 of his defence made me laugh, I didn't know driving an S Class Mercedes-Benz above 70mph would create substantial wear and cause severe judder, what a clown. The defence is very unorganised, the law is clear in that a consumer is entitled to reject a vehicle within 30 days should an issue occur, or after 30 days should an issue occur and an attempt at a repair has been made but is not successful. With reference to Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd 1965, I'm fairly sure the buyer in this case purchased the vehicle at a discount due to the alleged "fault" with the car, and was offered to buy it at the full price and the fault rectified, but chose to buy it with the fault at a discount.