PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CCBC Claim Form - Stopping Liverpool JLA
swinton76
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 16:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



Hello
I have received a Claim Form from the CCBC dated 3 November 2021 relating to an alleged “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at LJLA in September 2017 and would very much appreciate your thoughts and guidance. I intend to defend and think I may have grounds for a counter-claim for misuse of personal data and harassment.

Background
I received a NTK in 2017 and had a lot of correspondence in 2017 & 18 with VCS, IAS, BW Legal, ICO, SRA and DVLA. Correspondence ended in November 2018 when BW Legal failed to reply to a letter. I heard nothing more until 4 July 2021 when I received a letter from Debt Collection Bailiffs Ltd. I ignored this letter and two more from them.

I then received a letter from ELMS Legal dated 24 September 2021 (received 30 September 2021). The letter headed “Letter Before Claim” threatened to commence legal proceedings without further notice if the outstanding balance was not settled before 23 September 2021 (the day before the date of the letter). The letter did not include a paper copy of the information sheet or reply form (I have subsequently noticed a website address was given at the end of the letter where the forms could be downloaded). The “LBC” included a breakdown of the debt (£160 principal, £12 est interest at 8% , £50 est court fees, £50 est solicitors fees). The only explanation for the debt was “”vehicle bearing reg mark of xxxxxxx for breaching terms and conditions situated at LJLA” I replied by letter the next day (1 October 2021) denying the debt and restating I was not the driver. I pointed out the error of the dates and requested a properly formatted LBC. I queried the £160 principal debt in light of the comments of DJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson. I also requested a list of documents so that I might understand their position and included a Subject Access Request (SAR). I have received neither the requested documents nor an explanation why the information is unavailable. I have not received a response to the SAR.

I have now received a Claim Form from CCBC issued on 3 November 2021.
ELMS Legal are representing VCS. They are claiming “breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land …. namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited....The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering in a contract by conduct......The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.” The Total Amount is £245 ( Amount claimed £160, Court fee £35.00, legal costs £50)

Queries

1. When I originally appealed to VCS and IAS stating I was not the driver they said they were holding me liable under POFA. I argued at length about LJLA byelaws but they continued to say that the byelaws were redundant. However, in November 2018, in response to a complaint about their behaviour, BW Legal confirmed that “Liverpool John Lennon is covered by byelaws”. They stated that even though I said I was not the driver they would “pursue you for the balance due under the reasonable assumption that you were the driver” I replied that Elliot v Loake was not applicable but BW Legal did not respond.

By confirming that LJLA is covered by byelaws and therefore not relevant land under POFA does this mean that they did not have the right to request my data from DVLA and all subsequent use of my data was a breach of DPA and all the letters and telephone calls from various parties were harassment?
If VCS deny that there are byelaws does the misuse of my data start in November 2018 when BW Legal state they will assume I was the driver and the subsequent three letters from DCBL and one from Elms constitute harassment and a breach of DPA?

2. Reading para 4 of PAP, am I correct in thinking that ELMS should not have started legal action so soon? Should they have waited 30 days from providing the requested documents or notified me why they couldn't provide them? If so, what should I do? Do I approach the Court?

I'm really not sure where to go from here. I know I must acknowledge service and request an extension to 28 days but should I be writing to VCS and ELMs ? Should I request again the documents requested on 1 October 2021or should I just prepare my defence and counterclaim (if you think there are grounds)?

I would be very grateful for any guidance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 16:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 17:18
Post #2


Member


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



First of all - acknowledge today, online. Do not delay.


1)their initial request would not breach DPA. Once you denied being the driver, past that point further processing was unlawful. It's irrelevant about their belief about byelaws, and once their lawyers admit they exist they're doubly screwed
2) yes, under the pap they were enjoined from bringing. A claim until they responded about the docs. So you IN YOUR DEFENCE assert a breach of the Pap, ONE line only, as they did,not respond


Of course you have a counterclaim. Breach of DPA and harassment. They've engaged in a course of conduct - 2 or more letters - which I hope you've kept.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 17:56
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 17:18) *
First of all - acknowledge today, online. Do not delay.


1)their initial request would not breach DPA. Once you denied being the driver, past that point further processing was unlawful. It's irrelevant about their belief about byelaws, and once their lawyers admit they exist they're doubly screwed
2) yes, under the pap they were enjoined from bringing. A claim until they responded about the docs. So you IN YOUR DEFENCE assert a breach of the Pap, ONE line only, as they did,not respond


Of course you have a counterclaim. Breach of DPA and harassment. They've engaged in a course of conduct - 2 or more letters - which I hope you've kept.


Thank you for responding so quickly. I have now acknowledged. Thank you for clarifying the point at which the processing became unlawful. Yes, I have kept all the letters. I will now start preparing my defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 19:49
Post #4


Member


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



MSE forum
Newbies thread
.template defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
steve_lj
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 21:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 3 Sep 2015
Member No.: 79,183



I've just recently had a similar claim time out after 6 years.
Not sure if JLA think they have there ducks in a row now but a number of LBC's seem to be appearing.
If I recall they had issues with the local council regarding signage - maybe worth checking if this was ever resolved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 23:19
Post #6


Member


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



It is trivial to demonstrate that byelaws are in effect at the airport. Byelaws don't just regulate taxis at an airport etc, they cover really important stuff like interfering with an aircraft. LJLA wouldn't be operating if it wasn't protected by byelaws. VCS have claimed in the past that the byelaws only cover the old site - the airport was extended and the terminal moved, so a lot of the airport is now outside the original bounds. If that was true, it would mean that there are parts of the airport where for example it's not illegal to interfere with an aircraft! And finally, just because they choose not to enforce some of the byelaws, doesn't stop it from not being relevant land, so POFA doesn't apply.

About their particulars of claim: apart from being woefully inadequate as usual, part of it is an outright lie: "The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering in a contract by conduct."

The arrangement at LJLA is that to approach it, you drive along a public dual carriageway. At a point along it it, there is a turning off to the left, then beyond that, the dual carriageway becomes a private road. There are no indications before that turn off that you are entering a private road. Or that you are agreeing to some terms if you don't turn off. Once you have passed the turnoff, and so are committed to driving along the remaining length of the dual carriageway, signs finally become (barely) readable that say "No stopping. £100 if you stop" etc. First off, the signs make no offer. They don't say something like "you may enter this private property in return for agreeing to these conditions". And even if they did make an offer, there is no way to indicate acceptance or declining. At that point you are on a dual carriageway - you have no choice but to continue. Saying that continuing is accepting is perverse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Wed, 10 Nov 2021 - 11:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 19:49) *
MSE forum
Newbies thread
.template defence.

Thank you for the link!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Wed, 10 Nov 2021 - 11:46
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Tue, 9 Nov 2021 - 23:19) *
It is trivial to demonstrate that byelaws are in effect at the airport. Byelaws don't just regulate taxis at an airport etc, they cover really important stuff like interfering with an aircraft. LJLA wouldn't be operating if it wasn't protected by byelaws. VCS have claimed in the past that the byelaws only cover the old site - the airport was extended and the terminal moved, so a lot of the airport is now outside the original bounds. If that was true, it would mean that there are parts of the airport where for example it's not illegal to interfere with an aircraft! And finally, just because they choose not to enforce some of the byelaws, doesn't stop it from not being relevant land, so POFA doesn't apply.


About their particulars of claim: apart from being woefully inadequate as usual, part of it is an outright lie: "The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering in a contract by conduct."


The arrangement at LJLA is that to approach it, you drive along a public dual carriageway. At a point along it it, there is a turning off to the left, then beyond that, the dual carriageway becomes a private road. There are no indications before that turn off that you are entering a private road. Or that you are agreeing to some terms if you don't turn off. Once you have passed the turnoff, and so are committed to driving along the remaining length of the dual carriageway, signs finally become (barely) readable that say "No stopping. £100 if you stop" etc. First off, the signs make no offer. They don't say something like "you may enter this private property in return for agreeing to these conditions". And even if they did make an offer, there is no way to indicate acceptance or declining. At that point you are on a dual carriageway - you have no choice but to continue. Saying that continuing is accepting is perverse.


Expanding your points above do I argue that the signs are forbidding?

Do you think High Court DPP V Jones 4 March 1999 might be relevant here? Lord Irvine stated "there can be no basis for distinguishing highways on publicly owned land and privately owned land. The nature of the public's right of use of the highway cannot depend upon whether the owner of the sub-soil is a private landowner or a public authority" He went on to say " I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass" The photos of the incident supplied by VCS show that the driver did not cause a nuisance or obstruction and no Road Traffic Regulations were broken. Lord Irvine went on to say "Any fear, however, that the rights of private landowners might be prejudiced by the right as defined are unfounded. The law of trespass will continue to protect private landowners"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Nov 2021 - 12:55
Post #9


Member


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



Yep,, use it


You LASO argue it is forbidding. It is an entirely different point as forbidding signs do not offer a contract, meaning no contract can be formed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 12:32
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



I've noticed in the separate “unlawful add on section” on mse it is advised to report this to the SRA – I will report both BW Legal and ELMS.

In 2018 I reported BW Legal to the SRA for failing to comply with CPR and breaching GDPR (upheld by ICO). The SRA replied that “CPR breaches are the concern of the court directly and if there was court criticism of a firm, we may consider this evidence” My question now is can I use my defence to bring BW Legal's behaviour to the attention of the court? I would now also include the £60 add on, misuse of personal data and harassment (4 letters, at least 11 phone calls and 5 emails).
I have copies of all letters and emails and hand written notes of the dates and times of the calls.

I would appreciate your advice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 13:29
Post #11


Member


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



Haven't read back but have you got the Wilkinson case for addons?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 16:19
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 13:29) *
Haven't read back but have you got the Wilkinson case for addons?

I am intending to use the arguments from the template defence on MSE regarding addons and can add in Wilkinson. I did reference Wilkinson in my reply to ELMS "Letter of Claim" but they ignored that and my request for documents. They just applied straight to court. I mention this in my defence.

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to have a specific section in my defence about the behaviour of BW Legal and could it be used as grounds to request that the case be struck out? In one of their letters they say of Beavis- "this case eliminates the main defence you will have should the matter go to Court and will be relied upon by Our Client in any County Court proceedings" Do statements like this, and all the behaviour previously mentioned, put them in breach of their "professional obligations to the administration of justice, the rule of law and the courts" (SRA website)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 17:56
Post #13


Member


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



Not really, and would be unlikely to result in a dismissal.

Breach of pap - single line pointing to unreasonable behaviour that permits of no reasonable explanation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 19:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Nov 2021 - 17:56) *
Not really, and would be unlikely to result in a dismissal.

Breach of pap - single line pointing to unreasonable behaviour that permits of no reasonable explanation


Will do. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 00:24
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



I think that this is worthy of paying to issue a counterclaim primarily to prevent VCS pulling out on the eve.

That it was known from the first appeal that you were not the Driver and Byelaws prevent any liability.
That BW Legal admit to bylaws in 2018

Then it has gone through BW Legal; DCB Legal and now ELMS with among the various letters, there have also been emails and telephone calls.

Have the telephone calls all been from one entity? Or had it been provided in correspondence and further shared in the chain...
Same for the emails?

Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] this week shows Tort and/or Distress (as remedies) for misuse of personal information as in the case of Vidal v Google

the Data Controller for VCS before May 2018 [DPA 1998] and Various Data Controllers after [GDPA 2018]


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 09:41
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 00:24) *
I think that this is worthy of paying to issue a counterclaim primarily to prevent VCS pulling out on the eve.

That it was known from the first appeal that you were not the Driver and Byelaws prevent any liability.
That BW Legal admit to bylaws in 2018

Then it has gone through BW Legal; DCB Legal and now ELMS with among the various letters, there have also been emails and telephone calls.

Have the telephone calls all been from one entity? Or had it been provided in correspondence and further shared in the chain...
Same for the emails?

Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] this week shows Tort and/or Distress (as remedies) for misuse of personal information as in the case of Vidal v Google

the Data Controller for VCS before May 2018 [DPA 1998] and Various Data Controllers after [GDPA 2018]


Thank you for your reply and information.

As I understand I must contact the court for costs and guidance on counterclaiming. I have not yet done this but will do so on Monday.

Yes, all the calls and emails were from BW Legal. I did not provide this information to them but think it was mandatory to provide for the appeal to IAS.

After receiving three emails and a number of telephone calls from BW Legal, I wrote to them on 2 August 2018 saying "Do not contact me again other than by post"
On 27 November 2018, BW Legal admitted receiving this letter on 9 August 2018 and also state they then made five more telephone calls and sent one more email after 9 August 2018. My notes from the time show the times of the calls range from 08:05 to 15:27. I did not answer any of their calls or emails.

I am very grateful for your info re Lloyd v Google
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 10:09
Post #17


Member


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



What info didn't you send?

The ccbc won't give guidance. They can just tell you the rules. You can find out the costs for filing a claim online, in two seconds. It's based on the amount you're claiming. You need to, AT THE SAME TIME AS FILING THE DEFENCE, file the counterclaim. You then call the ccbc and pay the filing fee over the phone, after they've received the defence and counterclaim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 11:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 10:09) *
What info didn't you send?

The ccbc won't give guidance. They can just tell you the rules. You can find out the costs for filing a claim online, in two seconds. It's based on the amount you're claiming. You need to, AT THE SAME TIME AS FILING THE DEFENCE, file the counterclaim. You then call the ccbc and pay the filing fee over the phone, after they've received the defence and counterclaim


Sorry I didn't make that clear!

I didn't provide BW Legal with either my telephone number or my email address. I used my email address to initially appeal the PCN with VCS and then it had to be given to IAS for the appeals process. I have no recollection of ever giving my telephone number to VCS.

Understood - thank you - will google

This post has been edited by swinton76: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 - 12:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Wed, 17 Nov 2021 - 13:58
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



Whilst it is possible to file a claim separate to proceedings the advantage of a counterclaim is that it is held in the same court on the same day with the same judge
You are the Defendant to the Claim you would also the Defendant in a counterclaim.
If you are successful in defence of the claim, it is not automatic that you will be successful with the Counterclaim. You will still need to show damage or distress.
The anxiety of Dealing with various Debt collectors and Legal entities may be a trigger enough for some judges; where a different judge may say the Claimant had a reasonable belief that you were the Driver and tried and tried and tried to avoid the Claim.

Having the contemporaneous documents will lend more to credibility more than reliance on a bundle obtained through a Subject Access Request.

Google get paid 1/10s of a penny for adverts which appear on your devices, whereas Debt Collection are costing circa £60

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees
Shows that it £50 for a claim up to £500 and it is £70 for a claim for up to £1000.00

The particulars of [counter]claim will need to be worded to show the mischief and enough detail to prevent a strike out for no prospect of success... and a remedy.

Use as much time as you can afford to formulate the defence.



--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swinton76
post Wed, 17 Nov 2021 - 16:46
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Nov 2021
Member No.: 114,673



Would it be possible for people to have a look over my defence so far and let me know if I'm on the right lines? I've adapted the template defence from MSE and have not included those parts below
I've not included anything about counter-claiming, I'm still working on this.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thank you

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX
Between
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED
(Claimant) 
- and -  
XXXXXXXX                    
 (Defendant)
____________________
DEFENCE
____________________

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied as the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and therefore cannot be a party to the alleged contract.
4. The Claimant has provided photographs of the incident wherein the Defendant can clearly be seen alighting from the passenger door of the vehicle. Both the Claimant and their solicitor, BW Legal, have described this figure as a passenger. As a passenger, and not the driver of the vehicle, the Defendant could not form the contract as alleged by the Claimant. In the photographs, the Defendant is wearing a distinctive patterned coat. To aid confirmation of identity, the Defendant can provide the Court with date-stamped photographs wearing the coat before and after the incident and the Defendant will attend Court in the coat.
5. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant suggests that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The land is covered by byelaws and Schedule 4 Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) cannot be relied upon. The Defendant therefore has no liability. The Claimant's solicitor BW Legal said on 27 November 2018 “Liverpool John Lennon Airport is covered by byelaws and therefore our Client does not intend to pursue you under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”
6. Notwithstanding that the land is subject to byelaws, the Notice To Keeper did not comply with paras 9.2 (f) and 9.6 of Schedule 4 POFA.
7. The Particulars of Claim include an amount of £160. This amount includes £100 original debt (which is denied) and £60 for contractual costs. The Defendant avers that by combining these two amounts the Claimant is attempting to disguise their attempt at double recovery. In Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V, DJ Jackson considered whether Excel was entitled to claim additional contractual costs of £60 and decided that it was an attempt at double recovery and dismissed the claim for abuse of process.

 Public Highway with Right to Stop

8. The Defendant avers that the road in question is subject to Road Traffic Regulations which the Claimant does not have the authority to prosecute.
9. Liverpool Airport, now known as Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) was opened on 7 May 1966 and the same 2285m asphalt 09/27 runway is still in use. To access the airport, the public must travel on a dual carriageway sited initially on publicly owned land and then privately owned land. At the point of change of ownership of the land, drivers have no option but to continue onto the privately owned land.
10. In High Court DPP v Jones on 4th March 1999  Lord Irvine stated "there can be no basis for distinguishing highways on publicly owned land and privately owned land. The nature of the public's right of use of the highway cannot depend upon whether the owner of the sub-soil is a private landowner or a public authority" He went on to say " I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within these rights there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway"
11. The Defendant avers that this short, temporary stop by the driver to allow the Defendant to alight is permitted without penalty. The photos of the incident supplied by the Claimant show that the driver did not cause a nuisance or obstruction. Road Traffic Regulations were not broken but if they were the Claimant does not have the authority to prosecute them. Lord Irvine went on to say "Any fear, however, that the rights of private landowners might be prejudiced by the right as defined are unfounded. The law of trespass will continue to protect private landowners"
No contract formed
12. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant states that the driver of the vehicle (who was not the Defendant) entered into a contract where the terms, conditions and penalties were displayed on a sign at the entrance to the private land at the side of the road. The Claimant states the “sign was the offer and the act of entering the private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct”
13. It is not possible for a driver of a moving vehicle to safely read, digest and give consideration to a detailed contract on a sign at the side of a roadway .The driver would not be able to simultaneously drive with due care and attention and give consideration to the contract without putting other road users at risk and jeopardising their safety. This land owner does not provide a safe area for drivers to safely consider the contract. It is perverse to suggest that the only way a driver can safely consider the contract is to stop on the roadway thereby breaching the “contract”.
Forbidding signage
14. The Claimant alleges that the driver (who was not the Defendant) was in breach of the advertised terms and conditions of the contract by stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. The signage states an absolute prohibition against stopping at any time, for any period, on the roadway. Forbidding signage can not form the basis of a contract – if there is no offer there can be no acceptance. This has been decided in the following cases: PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]. In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner to prosecute.
15. In PCM (UK) v Bull, District Judge Glen stated “ It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass” District Judge Glen continued “ in my judgement, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some sort of contractual permission, because that is precisely what Parking Control Management were not giving to people who parked on the roadway. For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim.”
Breaches of Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP) and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) by Claimant and solicitors
16. The Defendant avers that the Claimant and solicitors have repeatedly not complied with PAP and GDPR.
17. On 2 January 2018, the Claimant sent a “Notice of Intended Court Proceedings” to the Defendant. On 9 January 2018, the Defendant replied and requested documents from the Claimant to help understand the case but the Defendant did not receive a reply.
18. On 13 February 2018, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's solicitors BW Legal reminding them that the Claimant had failed to provide the documents requested on 9 January 2018 but the Defendant did not receive a response from the solicitor.
19. On 9 July 2018, BW Legal wrote to the Defendant referencing Beavis and stated “ this case eliminates the main defence you will have should the matter go to Court and will be relied upon by Our Client in any County Court proceedings" It is not for the Claimant to say what the court will decide. In Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V DJ Jackson considered whether Excel was entitled to claim additional contractual costs of £60 (as in this claim) In paras 31 – 36, DJ Jackson considered Beavis and concluded that the additional £60 is double recovery and “is unlawful as a result as it is unfair” . The claim was struck out as an abuse of process.
The statement made by BW Legal regarding Beavis points to unreasonable behaviour that permits of no reasonable explanation.
20. On 20 July 2018, the Defendant submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to BW Legal followed by a reminder on 23 August 2018 but received no response. On 4 September 2018, the Defendant made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) for breach of GDPR by BW Legal. On 3 December 2018, the ICO informed the Defendant they are “of the opinion that BW has not complied with its data protection regulations. This is because it did not provide a response to your SAR within the required time limits”.
21. The Defendant wrote on 15 August 2018 to BW Legal in reply to a Letter of Claim requesting documents. The Defendant did not receive a response.
22. The Defendant wrote to ELMS Legal on 1 October 2021 in response to a “Letter of Claim” requesting documents. ELMS did not respond and commenced court action on 3 November 2021.
23. ELMS failed to respond to a Subject Access Request from the Defendant made on 1 October 2021.

This post has been edited by swinton76: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 - 19:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:12
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