County Court Claim Form |
County Court Claim Form |
Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 21:03
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
Hi there,
A driver has received a County Court Claim form from Northampton court from ParkingEye. Driver has submitted an acknowledgment of service so they can have a full 28 days to make their decisions on what to do. Driver is looking for advice on their options. The parking fine in question was from a Welcome Break, where the driver overstayed 10 minutes over the free 2 hours. Should the driver pay the £175 they are asking for? Should the driver defend the claim in full? What would the driver’s defence be? Or should the driver part admit and offer to pay the £15 which is what they charge for 2-24 hours... also if the driver goes for this option are they still liable to pay for the court fees etc? Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks This post has been edited by Ourmon: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 07:04 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 21:03
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 10:23
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Best submit as a PDF document. Latest versions of word allow you to save as a PDF document, if not there are many free PDF printer programmes available. The subject of the emaill has to continue the case number, litigants and description of what is being sent. If it requires a signature don't forget that.
There is a court page about format for emails. Contact the court by phone to get the latest email address, it appears to be changing around at the moment. You should get an email acknowledgment when it is received. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 10:44
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
You can use the email from them that they would have cancelled as evidence that ParkingEye's contract doesn't include the authority to take legal action
The BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2 says that ParkingEye must have the authority You therefore put ParkingEye to proof that the contract either grants the authority or that parkingEye has requested permission to bring the case I always advise clients to scan signatures into a Word document and convert that to pdf No need to include any text in the body of the email Claim number, title and "Defence" in the heading are enough |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:04
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mse+newbies+thread
Google exists. I gave you exactly enough information that the newbies thread is the FIRST RESULT if you had done one simple solitary search. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 13:25
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
Thanks all. So is a skeleton argument the same as a defence then? When researching online I keep seeing 'skeleton arguments'.
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 13:31
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
A skeleton argument is NOT the same as a defence, and is optional, and is at the point when both sides have exchanged WS and other evidence. MUST further down the line
A defence is mandatory |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:02
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
Thank you.
I fear my case is way too similar to the Beavis case and I will automatically lose. This post has been edited by Ourmon: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:03 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:14
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Not similar at all
Beavis concerned an overstay in a free retail car park where the land-owner wanted a constant turnover of visitors The charge was a penalty but there was a commercial justification and public interest for a charge large enough to discourage an overstay This allowed the penalty to be recovered The Appeal Court said that the penalty could never be recovered in a pay car park and the Supreme Court didn't disagree |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:26
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
Okay, I will begin drafting a defence... is it ok to post on this thread?
This post has been edited by Ourmon: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:52 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 17:57
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 Joined: 6 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,558 |
Yes and advised as well.
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:28
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
So I've been doing a little research and here are some notes I made.... do I mention these points in my defence or are they too specific?
Further research has shown there is a sign on the entrance but it is impossible to see the small print whilst driving past it, especially for someone who has to wear glasses. Driver was tired after a seven hour drive from Scotland, had pulled in to get some rest and so drove past without noticing the sign. There is no sign on the route that I walked, from where I parked to the establishment. Research after has shown there are signs to the right and left of this area but these are easily missed when taking the route I took. Without the ability to see the signs, there is no ability to agree to a contract. I have been unable to locate where the ANPR cameras are situated but as they do not take the cars registration when the car is parked, this means part of the time included in the Claimants calculation would be time spent entering, driving around and exiting the car park. This is not classed as parking. Signs exiting the car park, with a reminder to pay if staying over two hours are facing the wrong direction. Instead of facing the driver head on as they drive towards the signs, the driver would need to turn their head to the left (whilst driving) in order to see these signs and therefore are not appropriate signage. This post has been edited by Ourmon: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:29 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:42
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Don't use the part about the tired driver but the other points can be used with a bit of rephrasing
I would go further attacking the placement of the ANPR and assert that it causes Welcome Break? to be in breach of its licence to operate the site It is required to provide two hours of free parking This means stopped in the car park and doesn't include other activities such as buying fuel afterward before you pass the camera on the exit slip road It would be useful to know what the signs in the car park say about how long you have to pay for the parking The reminder sign at the exit is next to useless, even if it is seen, if there is nowhere afterward to stop and pay We all know why ParkingEye doesn't do it but their operation would be a lot more ethical if they allowed drivers 24 hrs to pay online before they started contacting the DVLA to issue the parking notices This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:49 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:02
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,651 |
Thanks for the reply. Do you think there are any more points that I could bring against them? The signage and ANPR is all I can think of that relates really.
And obviously a point about Parking Eye not being the landowners and maybe mentioning how Welcome Break have already said they would waive the penalty if they could, even though law states they can intervene at any point. Is there anything else really? In regards to the sign, here is a stock photo but I have checked on Google Maps and it is very similar to the one in question. Only differences include the costs (it's £15 not £10) and you can only pay at WH Smith https://c8.alamy.com/compde/d9730h/schild-p...land-d9730h.jpg This post has been edited by Ourmon: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:04 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:32
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
There are lots of other points
As you've been repeatedly told - read other threads |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:50 |