PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1062 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:00


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 21:51) *
Assuming they weren't represented it would be better if legal costs were capped at say x100 the debt (£4,000).

What does the size of the original debt have to do with an action in tort against the bailiff?
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1376077 · Replies: 15 · Views: 428

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 20:55) *
Regardless, there is a system of street lighting so it would be considered a restricted road in the absence of any other signs. So 30mph. 34mph is in excess of this too.

Even if there’s a TRO in place?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1376055 · Replies: 6 · Views: 230

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 13:58) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 11:21) *
Why is it unfair?

Because the driver paying money in advance without any guarantee they will receive the service they have paid for just seems intrinsically unfair as the contract terms are imposed on the consumer . Imagine ordering goods online but receiving nothing because the retailer is out of stock but then also receiving no refund.

It sounds like a sensible and reasonable business practice to me.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1376006 · Replies: 7 · Views: 211

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 11:26) *
They are as liable for Redcorn's actions as Redcorn themselves.

Are you sure?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375993 · Replies: 17 · Views: 496

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


If they’re going to ban you they will insist on you attending.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1375913 · Replies: 7 · Views: 387

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Why is it unfair?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375859 · Replies: 7 · Views: 211

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 19:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


It’s the car owner’s debt isn’t it?
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1375742 · Replies: 15 · Views: 428

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 19:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Based on the information provided - no.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1375741 · Replies: 19 · Views: 814

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 18:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


In practice they tend to be sent out by email on request so it’s unlikely ever to be an issue.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375721 · Replies: 28 · Views: 408

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 18:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Para 34 and 35 of the same document I believe:

QUOTE
34. Where the legal duty only extends to making the information available for inspection, it cannot automatically be considered as reasonably accessible and so exempt under section 21(1) by virtue of section 21(2)(b). One example of this is as follows:

Under the Local Government Act 2000, a principal council has a duty to make certain information available following the making of executive decisions, but for inspection only.

35. However, information that is only available for inspection can still be considered to be reasonably accessible to the applicant under other parts of section 21. In this context, and in view of the necessary test of reasonableness, this means that in most cases an applicant will need to present strong arguments that the information was not reasonably accessible.


The example seems analogous to the requirement imposed in respect of TROs. The ICO seems to think it likely to fall within the s 21 exemption.

If you felt particularly strongly you could always ask them I suppose. Ultimately though, the information is available one way or the other so the discussion is somewhat moot.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375715 · Replies: 28 · Views: 408

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


If you say so.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375711 · Replies: 28 · Views: 408

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


TROs are "published or made available under statute" though, viz Schedule 2 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375708 · Replies: 28 · Views: 408

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:51) *
£75, £25 for the claim and £50 legal fees, to claim any more they would have to show the defendant had been unreasonable.

Considering the fixed costs alone for a claim for £500-£1000 are £70 you might want to check. There are other costs recoverable on the small claims track that you haven’t listed.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1375703 · Replies: 98 · Views: 7,535

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 22:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (samthecat @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 23:23) *



QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 23:25) *

Ironic.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1375528 · Replies: 15 · Views: 428

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 17:41) *
I agree with SP that the issue of ADR is not directly relevant to the actual defence but still believe that it's appropriate to address it in this statement

It is AS Parking that has raised the subject in the Particulars of Claim
It's reasonable to assume that it believes that the allegation helps its case
The logical conclusion is that it's a tactic intended to paint the Defendant as unreasonable and whose defence should not have the benefit of any doubt

Small Claims Court follows the principle that whatever is not disputed is agreed
The false allegations should therefore be addressed by the defence statement so that they cannot colour the judge's view of the rest of the defence

You do it orally in court.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1375491 · Replies: 136 · Views: 6,841

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 18:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (mj11 @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:14) *
Asking as it was misty that morning (visibility still good though) and I thought they weren't allowed out in those conditions?

Why?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1375454 · Replies: 4 · Views: 247

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 16:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 17:41) *
If they are so confident that they will win the case for you they should be prepared to take it on a ‘No win. No fee’’ basis.

AFAIK criminal proceedings can’t be subject to a conditional fee agreement.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1375427 · Replies: 21 · Views: 928

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 15:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (eggybread1922 @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 11:37) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 11:24) *
You could add that you deny you have not complied with the PAP for debt claims, and completing a form is not a required element of a consumer. You can state you did not take up the offer of a wel known biased ADR that g'tees to find in the parking companies favour 85% of the time, for obvious reasons.


Thanks I did originally write that but then it was suggested by somebody else not to include it.



It’s not relevant to your defence. A failure to engage in ADR would only be relevant to costs and would only be brought up at that stage. Some people on here seem to think a defence is a very long and complex document that adopts a style of written argument such that there’s almost no need to actually say anything in court. Those people are not lawyers (one hopes) and they are wrong. A defence merely addresses the relevant allegations in the claim and sets out the defendant’s position for later argument in court.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1375390 · Replies: 136 · Views: 6,841

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 20:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (eggybread1922 @ Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 20:57) *
Claim Number: ___

Between:

__________ v _________

Defence Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.


The defendant denies that the pre action protocol was not completed. Whilst the defendant admits that they did not complete the reply form, this is not a necessary step for the defendant to perform.
The defendants robust reply to the ‘letter before court action’ and ample correspondence in attempting to narrow the issues were met with scorn, accusations, outright misrepresentations and numerous attempts to mislead the defendant.

The claimant has shown no willingness to avoid court and have openly stated they are only pursuing court action for reasons unrelated to the alleged breach.

The defendant has chosen not to engage in alternative dispute resolution as it has been noted in the public domain that the IAS is an unfair appeals system which guaruntees to dismiss 85% of appeals by motorists. This is an unfair alternative dispute resolution and whilst there is an alternative such as the widely acknowledged Ombudsman Service, it was not offered.



The defendant denies that they are liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:


1. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All of these are treated differently in law and require a different defence.

a)The claimant is to be put to strict proof that there was not a valid ticket displayed for inspection. Photos provided of the vehicle’s dash board are not visible due to poor lighting and dark conditions. Without strict proof, there can be no claim.

b)The claimant has been asked to clarify why it believes the driver is in breach of the terms and conditions of parking, the claimant has failed to clarify its position and has stated that they are making no assumptions.



2.The signage at the car park in question is inadequate; the driver can not be bound by a contract that they can not see.

a) Signage at the car park in question fails on multiple points of the IPC code of practice:

i)contrast and illumination
ii)repeater signs
ii)other signs

b) The signs on site are unlit and not clearly visible at night. (This has previously been upheld in court; Vine vs London Borough of Waltham forest)

c) This is in breach of POFA as there is no relevant obligation or relevant contract on the car park in question.

3.The defendant has reasonable belief that the claimant lacks landowner authority. The claimant has repeatedly refused to provide a copy of the contract therefore the claimant is put to strict proof that it exists.

4.The late payment fee is without merit.

i)The late payment fee is not detailed in the notice to keeper.
ii)No specific late payment fee is detailed in the notice to driver.
iii)The protection of freedoms act 2012 4(5) states that the maximum sum that can be recovered from the keeper is the amount stated in the Notice to Keeper.
iv) signage at the car park in question is inadequate, unlit, and too small for the driver to read or notice that a late payment fee even exists.
v)The claimant believes the late payment fee existed before the payment was even due, this is clearly a nonsense, and an obvious attempt to mislead an unrepresented defendant into paying an amount greater than they could ever be liable for.
vi) Beavis vs Parking eye did not allow any sum greater than the original charge.


5.The original charge is without merit.

a)Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis vs Parking eye.


b) As stated in Beavis vs Parking eye; pay per hour car parks are subject to the “penalty rule”, where a charge that is completely disproportionate to the tariff (as is the case in this instance) is unrecoverable.The charge in this case is also contrary to the consumer rights act 2015


6.The claimant is to be put to strict proof that the keeper is the driver, the claimant has refused to provide this evidence.



I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed
Date

That’s just for starters. Defences blindly copied from the internet are almost always pretty bad.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1375198 · Replies: 136 · Views: 6,841

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 21:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


The cap was only removed for Level 5 fines. Speeding is Level 3, 4 on a motorway.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1374896 · Replies: 6 · Views: 281

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 17:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


And in any case, there still has to be some form of proportionality, even in exceptional cases. It’s not as simple as RWI x multiplier.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1374854 · Replies: 6 · Views: 281

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 17:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 17:41) *
It’s just a shame that you now have been convicted of three offences

He might have been...
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1374845 · Replies: 76 · Views: 4,245

southpaw82
Posted on: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 20:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Claim number xxx


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Between

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

And

[XXX] (Defendant)

DEFENCE


1. Save where otherwise expressly admitted the Particulars of Claim are denied. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any relief.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of a [make] [model] motor car, registered number [xxx] ('the Car'). It is admitted that on 16 March 2017 the Car was at the Farley Centre.

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms of parking.

a. The Claimant does not allege what the terms of parking were or how they were breached. The Defendant is therefore embarrassed in putting forward a defence to this allegation.

b. The Defendant assumes that any such terms would be communicated by signs at the Farley Centre. Subject to this being alleged by the Claimant, it is denied that any signs present were sufficient to communicate the terms of parking, to the Defendant or any other person.

c. It is denied that the Defendant or the driver of the Car breached any of the terms of parking. Such breach has not been particularised by the Claimant and the Defendant reserves his position on this issue once it is particularised by the Claimant.

4. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant was "driving the vehicle and/or keeping the vehicle". The Claimant should state its case clearly, as these are separate allegations with separate consequences for the Defendant.

a. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and thus directly bound by the terms of parking (whatever they may be) it is required to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

b. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle, this is admitted. However, the Claimant would then only have a claim against the Defendant if it follows the statutory procedure set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with that procedure.

5. Subject to the Claimant providing further and better particulars of claim, the Defendant reserves his position in respect of any new information.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed:

Dated:

------------------------

I've kept open the following options for trial:

- Unclear signs
- Not the driver
- No compliance with PoFA

I don't think not the driver is a great defence - I'd simply ask you at trial and you'd have to admit it. That blows PoFA out of the water too. If it gets as far as trial you may have difficulties as you'll be arguing the signage issue only. I've not mentioned the conversation with the attendant, as that would undermine your not the driver defence, as you'd have to admit to driving. It's a bit late now to completely change tack. I've not seen any evidence as to how good/bad the signs were and whether you knew about them.

The other extraneous stuff I've left out (like commenting on compliance with CPR, asking for a strike out etc) as it should never appear in a [professionally drafted] defence.

Good luck (to your brother) but it's not the strongest defence case I've ever seen. Personally I'd rather have admitted being the driver and argued signage and the permission of the attendant but that runs its own risks, particularly if the signage is adequate and the attendant doesn't back the story up.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374638 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,626

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 21:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (mrmk @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 20:47) *
for an incident such as this, if i were to hire a lawyer, how would the lawyer defend me? what sort of things would they raise to make the incident seem less severe and lower the punishment (just wondering because i was quoted at £1250)

They wouldn’t defend you, they would mitigate. There’s not an a lot to say - you hit a car, couldn’t be bothered to get out and check, glanced over your shoulder and drove off. You’re probably better off saving the £1,250 (including or excluding VAT?) for the fine.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1374480 · Replies: 76 · Views: 4,245

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 17:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,935
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


No. As I said, it is fundamentally wrong. No amount of tweaking will fix it, it needs to be completely re-written.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374436 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,626

1062 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 21st April 2018 - 13:17
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.