PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Excel ticket issued, Parked without ticket displayed - do I appeal?
Triumph1000
post Sat, 28 Mar 2020 - 12:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Just opened a Excel parking notice issue on early March 2020 - saying no ticket was displayed on the parked vehicle.

May I ask for help to see if I can appeal this - or should I just ignore?

Thank you in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sat, 28 Mar 2020 - 12:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 14:31
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Hi,

Thanks for all the useful information. I have been through a few forums - and this is the best.

On the original notice they did not state length period of parking - but do have a photo of the vehicle with no driver in it. I will refer to POFA 9 (2) (a).

I want to clarify what ‘ Failure to correctly state keeper liability’


If they ask me to attend court - I shall, just want to be sure of what I’m saying. Your help has been so useful thus far. My defence will be:

1) ticket purchased and not seen by parking attendant (May have fallen on the floor). No proof of purchasing the ticket.
2) Failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (wrong dates on time to reply)
3)Abuse of process. Adding more to the debt (£60) to attempt to recover more then is due.
4) Failure to correctly state keeper liability and no period of parking. Both of which must be stated.
5) poorly lit signage

I am now reading ‘ MSE forum draft defence from feb 2020’ to learn more.

Any comments on my defence thus far would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

This post has been edited by Triumph1000: Sat, 30 May 2020 - 14:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 15:56
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Don't mention fallen on the floor.

Read POFA so you understand. the wording is from date given not date issued. COuold be several days adrift

Signage unacble to create a contract because it's unreadable because of lack oflighting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 11:15
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Hi,

So Excel eventually I have received a County Court Business Centre request...........I had been waiting awhile.

Can I ask for help..........I am looking for the basis of a letter to help me put across the reasons not to pay. I will included the fact that they have added additional recovery costs not related to the parking fine.

Your help is much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 12:16
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



By "request" do you mean a claim form?
What is its date of issue?
You are now in a formal legal process. You won't be "writing them a letter". You will be carefully following all the instructions from the court, with strict deadlines, no reminders, and potentially an automatic default judgement against you for any steps that are missed or late.

Your first step is to acknowledge the claim online - do this as soon as possible after 5 days of date of issue. Don't contest jurisdiction unless you live outside E&W, defend all the claim, and leave the defence entirely blank - you will be submitting that separately later, as you only get one go at it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 13:42
Post #45


Member


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



As above
Get a different mindset. This is a court process. No slips or second chances.

Tell us
- issue date
- date you acknowledged the claim ONLINE, NEVER USE THE PAPER FORM
- how you get on writing the defence.

MSE forum, newbies thread, has a complete guide to the entire courts process. Your first stop for ANY question is there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 13:59
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



For the additional costs added try reading this :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G...kinson.pdf?dl=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 14:32
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Thank you for the quick response.

So - action points:

1, reply via email with Name and Claim number (this was issued on 27 May 2021)
2, Advise them that a defence letter will follow (before the 15th June 2021)
3, plan my defence letter and share it here for assistance.

Question - if it goes to court and the court find in their favour will I get an adverse CCJ (which can affect my credit rating)?

Many thanks

This post has been edited by Triumph1000: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 14:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 14:54
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



QUOTE
Question - if it goes to court and the court find in their favour will I get an adverse CCJ (which can affect my credit rating)?

Only if you fail to pay within 28 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 16:30
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (Triumph1000 @ Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 14:32) *
So - action points:

1, reply via email with Name and Claim number (this was issued on 27 May 2021)
2, Advise them that a defence letter will follow (before the 15th June 2021)

Who are you referring to as "they"? You still don't seem to be getting it. You're not emailing people and letting them know what you're doing. You are going to the court (MCOL) website and, using the account details supplied in the claim form to login, you're going fill in the "acknowledgement of service" form, ticking the boxes as explained earlier, and leaving the defence box completely empty. If you write "defence to follow" in the defence box, that one sentence becomes your whole defence, which you can't amend, and you will lose the case. So you leave it absolutely blank, then later email your defence to the court. You don't need to tell anybody that a defence will follow later - not the claimant and not the court.
QUOTE
3, plan my defence letter and share it here for assistance.

Yes.
QUOTE
Question - if it goes to court and the court find in their favour will I get an adverse CCJ (which can affect my credit rating)?

Only if you don't pay in full within a month of the judgement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 16:53
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Hi

The County Court Business Centre (who sent me the claim form) confirmed that my defence letter will be shared with the claimants and questionnaires will be issued.

So my question is - by sharing my defence letter am I at a disadvantage as this gives them time to 'pick holes' in it.

Thank you for your help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 17:02
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



That's standard practice. They get to see your defence. Nothing to be worried about.

Again these are not letters. They are legal documents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 2 Jun 2021 - 18:30
Post #52


Member


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



Notice we use the word. Defence.

That's because a defence is a specific "thing". It is not a letter. No one is getting a letter. You're going to write a DEFENCE.
Get in this mindset


You must, must, must read the newbies thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 09:33
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



So.......I have drafted my response.......is this good enough? (it is quite long)


2nd DRAFT

The facts as known to the Defendant:

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.???

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. I am unsure who the driver was on dateXXXX. I confirm that I was not the driver.

The first time I heard about this parking charge was by post and was then subsequently bombarded with debt recovery letters thereafter

The facts are that the driver of the vehicle, registration XXXX, was present in the XXXX road car park on dateXXXX at timeXXXX.

The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the amount has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3. That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2. NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

The particulars of claim state that the Defendant was in breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant , whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily, particularly given the lack of lighting conditions and lack of lighting of the signs. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. Signage has no lighting (time after sunset - and attach evidence)

In this respect and in all other facts - including the lack of prominence and clarity of the signage and the small font used to hide the onerous terms, the Supreme Court case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is fully distinguished.

No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 as it does not identify the creditor. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to be made to UKPC, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be UKPC or some other party. The POFA 2012 requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and the Notice does not. CHECK THIS POINT

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. - CHECK ownership It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner. Not sure about this paragraph……..Iceland is the store - not sure who owns the car park!!

Non-compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012. The 'period of parking' is not shown on the NTK, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Therefore the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4. According to Schedule 4 para 8, the Notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

Costs on the claim – Abuse of Process. The parking charge in question is for £70, yet the Claimant is trying to recover an additional £60 for 'Debt recovery costs'. The purported added 'costs' are an abuse of process. The double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 ('the CRA') 'terms that may be unfair'.

In claim number G4Q2465V Excel v Wilkinson July 2020 the judge ordered that the claim be struck out based on the abuse of process. District Judge Jackon concluded - para [39] in my judgement the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. There can be no doubt that the inclusion of the additional costs claim is inclusion of a claim based either on an unfair clause which will not be enforced by the court. Double recovery or an attempt to circumvent CPR27.14 when it is unfair to do so. Para [43] ‘Having regard to all elements of the overriding objectives and the need for a sanction to be proportionate I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown.

Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out an overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases stated: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: "Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will -
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added again to the 'parking charge'.

This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: "But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer , simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85". And at [199]: "What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests."
The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, where it was stated three times that the £85 had to cover the costs of the letters.
In the Beavis case it was said on para [205]: "The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.
At para 98. {re...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} "Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services..."
At para 193. "Judging by Parking Eye's accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered Parking Eye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit." and at para 198: "The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is also set at a level enabling Parking Eye to make a profit."

The CRA 2015 is against this claim. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 75% to the parking charge, in a double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is astounding to this Defendant, that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years. Even if most courts are routinely disallowing the added £60 'costs' of all parking charge cases now (and it is clear from online reports that almost all courts are disallowing that sum) this is not enough.

It is especially unacceptable that parking firms are still filing claims including what they know is a tainted and unrecoverable sum, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source, including in the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit, included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:

(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
© The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims, is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So, I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 2012 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.''Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

The Defendant requests that this Court - using its case management powers. Pursuant to CPR 3.4. - recognises its duty to consider the CRA 2015 in the same way as the Southampton and Warwick courts recently have done, and opts to summarily strike out this claim due to the Claimant's flagrant disregard for consumer rights as set out in statute.

The Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all of the following four cases involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2,
both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and
(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,
where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''. In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio. To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed: 'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure. Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 09:48
Post #54


Member


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



That's not the template. Obviously not, and has the old statement of truth that is utterly unacceptable.

Keeper but not the driver. You are unaware who the driver was on the day
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:06
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Thank you for your reply.

Keeper but not the driver. You are unaware who the driver was on the day - Understood, I will amend.

Are you saying I need to use a different template?.........will any of the above be useful to my defence?

Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:23
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



You could use the template mentioned by nosferatu in post #45 - it's on the MSE Forum Newbies thread. 2nd post down explains the whole court process and includes a template you can adapt.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:42
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Thank you. I have read those pages on MSE........ I cannot locate the template for the life of me.

Could you give direction on how to locate please.

I confirm that I have just acknowledged the claim online.

Regards

This post has been edited by Triumph1000: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:43
Post #58


Member


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



I'm saying copying an old template is a bad idea. As pointed out, you would have filed an unlawful defence as the statement of truth was amended a year ago, and you MUST use it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Triumph1000
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:45
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Member No.: 108,367



Thank you very much for this crucial information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 10:55
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE (Triumph1000 @ Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 11:42) *
I cannot locate the template for the life of me.

2nd post down on the Newbies thread - it explains the whole process and there is a template defence in there - it's in BLOCK CAPS, quite hard to miss:

QUOTE
THEN - UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARKING EYE CLAIM (DIFFERENT) - READ THIS TEMPLATE DEFENCE AND EDIT IT TO SUIT:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...-admin-costs/p1


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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 - 13:54
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