PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Letter from solicitors re ticket 2 years ago
oldredhen
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



I'd really appreciate some guidance as to whether anything can be done now about a ticket received 2 years ago. This was for parking on DYL on a private industrial estate patrolled by UKCPM. The ticket was unsuccessfully appealed and has dragged on with queries etc, last heard from debt recovery agency end of 2016, then a letter from solicitor beginning of 2017 and then nothing again until just this month, "Letter before claim" from the solicitor.

I can give further details (a lot of them!) but thought I would just keep it to a brief idea of the situation. Are there any grounds for continuing to fight against a private company's ticket now it's gone this far down the line? Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 103)
Advertisement
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
oldredhen
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 18:42
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Would it be a good idea to attach to the WS (referring to them in bullet points in the WS), copies of all the letters that went to and fro, eg LBC which had minimal information, my request for more information, my further request to remind them that I had asked for more information, all showing they've not been helpful?

Or might it just create additional paperwork for the court to sift through and be a distraction? As they don't really refer to the main points for rebuttal.

Sorry to keep asking for help, but I'm very aware that this has to be in the post next Monday to the Claimant (it will be going by hand to the local court). Thanks, everyone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 09:07
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If you assert anything in your WS, then you really need to add evidence to support yoru assertion whereever you can.
Just do it succinctly - so you can very wuickly bullet point the claimant refused to follow the PAP in... *bullet points*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 12:51
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



I'm just finalising my SA and would be grateful for comments...I'm just not that convinced about it, it seems a bit muddly to me, particularly the bit about not allowing the extra costs etc.

In the County Court at XXX
Claim ref: XXX
Between:
XXX (the Claimant)
and
XXX (the Defendant)

Skeleton Argument on behalf of XXX (the Defendant)

Background: The Claimant asserts that the Defendant was the driver in the case of a contested Parking Charge Notice. The Defendant states that they have simply never responded as or admitted to being the driver as stated in their Defence point 1, and in addition states:
a) the vehicle in question did not incur a parking charge on the date shown on the Particulars of Claim;
b) amounts due to the management company on this private industrial estate do not include parking charges;
c) the right to pass and repass also includes the right to load and unload in order to carry out normal business activities.

1. The Defendant’s original defence forms the basis of their legal arguments but having seen the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Defendant now makes the following points.

2. The Claimant’s Witness Statement (point 4) states that the Defendant has been pursued as the driver because he appealed the charge. The Claimant has offered no proof that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant responded as he is responsible for the paperwork side of the business and his father, also a partner, is the one who carries out the majority of the practical side of the business due to his skill and expertise in this area. The Defendant has always responded as the business point of contact and is not being deliberately evasive or misleading. See Defence point 1. The Defendant relies upon the words of barrister and parking expert Lead Adjudicator for PATAS and POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, where he clarified in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 in a heading: 'Understanding Keeper Liability' that a private parking operator must never presume that a keeper is the driver.

3. The Claimant’s Witness Statement (point 5) states that it is unclear why he (the Defendant) states the terms were not breached. The Defendant has not stated this at all. The Defendant has stated that no proof has been submitted that the terms of parking were breached on the date shown in the claim (XX/XX/2016) (point 2 of the Defence).

4. The Claimant’s Witness Statement (point 8) rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the signs. The Defendant has never averred that they did not see the signs. The Defendant has stated in the Defence (point 12) that the Claimant’s signage is forbidding parking. The Claimant has referred to the Sign as the Contract in its Witness Statement 2 (ii). The Sign is forbidding parking (“No parking on roadways at anytime”), therefore no contract is offered and there is no contract to be entered into, as detailed in the Defendant’s Defence point 12, and the Court is asked to take note of the ruling in PCMK v Bull as referenced in this point in the Defence. The Defendant’s Witness Statement point 16 stated that the signs now in place are not the signs that were in place at the time of the alleged parking incident, which is why the Defendant requested a copy of the sign that was in place at the time of the alleged incident. Google maps clearly show that the sign is different but do not allow a clear enough picture when zooming in to be able to read the small print on the signs.

5. The Claimant has ignored the fact that loading was in process at the time of the alleged incident and the Court is asked to take note of the ruling in Jopson v Homeguard Services as referred to in the Defence points 8. The fact that the freehold property has a lease to pass and repass over the roadways means that this is a matter for the other party concerned to raise as a breach with the Defendant, which they have not done, where the remedy would be to seek damages, not an arbitrary parking charge payable to the Claimant who is not a party to the lease.

6. The Claimant denies the allegation that their Company used predatory tactics by encouraging parking on the Land in their Witness Statement point 10. The Defendant has never alleged this. The Defendant states in his Defence (point 14) that the Claimant has acted in a predatory way by waiting to issue a Parking Charge Notice instead of requesting that the vehicle be moved by one of the persons in the vicinity.

7. The Claimant asserts in their Witness Statement (points 11-14) their right to recover more than the maximum allowable amount of £100 stated on their sign. The Defendant refers the Court to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POFA) which states “the reference in the definition of “parking charge”…is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle is parked on the relevant land). The Claimant’s submission of a copy of their sign clearly states this is £100. Under POFA Paragraph 4(1) the Claimant only has the right to recover “any unpaid parking charges from the keeper” – again, £100. POFA Paragraph 4(5) goes on to say “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”, which clearly states £100. The addition of £60 is commercially unjustifiable and exceeds the amount laid out in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations of £40 for sums up to £999.99. In any case, the Claimant should not be entitled to charge any administration fees as they are a pre-existing cost of its business and a proportion of such charges cannot be notionally ascribed to each ticket it issues and enforces.

8. The Claimant asserts in their Witness Statement (point14) that their company is entitled to costs of £50 pursuant to CPR 45.2. The general rule in the small claims Court is that the Court will not make a costs order, assuming that all parties have behaved reasonably. CPR 45.2 expressly states reference to CPR 45.1 in which paragraph (2) is relevant in this case and states

(2) This Section applies where –
(a) the only claim is a claim for a specified sum of money where the value of the claim exceeds £25 and –
(i) judgment in default is obtained under rule 12.4(1);
(ii) judgment on admission is obtained under rule 14.4(3);
(iii) judgment on admission on part of the claim is obtained under rule 14.5(6);
(iv) summary judgment is given under Part 24;
(v) the Court has made an order to strike out a defence under rule 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim; or
(vi) rule 45.4 applies;

As none of (a)(i) to (vi) apply, this is not relevant.


9. The Claimant states in their Witness Statement (point 15) that they believe their Letter Before Claim is compliant with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. The Defendant states this is not the case as their Letter Before Claim, attached to their Witness Statement, does not provide any information as to:
i. whether interest or other charges are continuing – in fact no mention is made of interest;
ii. the fact that a copy of the written agreement (presumed here to be the invoice for the parking charge) can be requested from them;
iii. how the debt can be paid (it is not clear to whom this should be paid nor where it should be sent to);
Further, it gives the up-to-date statement of the amount outstanding as £160 with no details of any interest and does not state that any interest may be applied. In addition, it does not enclose a copy of the Information Sheet or the Reply Form, merely stating these are available online and that in order to obtain this a log in must be created. There is also no Financial Statement Form included. This is incompetence at the very least from a company who carries out this type of correspondence on a daily basis as part of their business.

10. The Claimant states that the debt has risen as their Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt, which time could have been better spent on other elements of the Company’s business. As this is the Company’s business, the Defendant does not believe that any further costs have arisen.

11. The Defendant therefore requests the Court to dismiss this claim.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 05:57
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



A massive thanks to everyone – see below for judgement.

Upon no attendance from both parties

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.Claim dismissed.


Bit of background – it became clear, during the months while we were waiting for the court date, that the defendant would not be able to attend due to ill health. We didn’t want to delay it any further so, having informed the court we would not be attending, I sent the SA to the court a couple of days before the court date.

Sorry that there are no further details to pass on, but many thanks to all who helped and encouraged along the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:50
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here