PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Excel/VCS/bwlegal - PCN from March 2012, Threads merged
Persephone
post Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 14:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



I collected information from this forum after the receipt of a “Notice to Owner” dated 16/4/2012 until the threatening letters from Whites stopped arriving later in 2012. I did not respond to any of those.
On 27th July 2016 I received the letter from VCS passing my “account” to bwLegal and, in the same post, another letter from bwLegal claiming a “balance due” of £174.00, comprising a PCN charge of £120.00 plus £54.00 “initial legal costs”. Once again I researched this forum and came up with this response:

1 August 2016
Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to your letter of 25 July 2016, a copy of which I enclose, I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Parking Limited. As I’m sure you are aware, the alleged event took place before the enactment of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and I was not the driver. Thus, your client has no right to pursue me as the registered keeper.

You have no reasonable cause to continue to process my personal information, including Vehicle Registration Mark. As such you must confirm within 21 days that you and all your agents have ceased processing my data, to prevent further distress and harassment being caused. You must treat this as a Section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act.

No consent has been given, or will be given, for you to process my data. Should you contend consent was given, which is denied, it is revoked.

Do not reference Elliot Vs Loake. You are fully aware this does not apply in this case. Similarly, I should not have to remind you that your £54 "legal" charges cannot possibly be recovered at small claims, as per CPR27.14.

In summary:
1 I was not the driver of the vehicle on 16 March 2012.
2 BW Legal has attempted to mislead me by demanding £54 legal costs, which cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
3 BW Legal has also misrepresented the consequences of a judgement - a CCJ “may have a detrimental effect on my future creditworthiness and employability”.
4 Vehicle Control Services Parking Limited’s delay of over four years to begin legal action is unreasonable behaviour.

Yours faithfully,



bwLegal’s response to that arrived on 25/8/2016 (dated 23 Aug).


I’ll try to post an image.


What is the best way forward? Do I use Gan’s concise response:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: *****
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23 August 2016.

I refer you to my previously reply, a copy of which is enclosed

My position is unchanged

Yours Faithfully

OR can I rant a bit?

Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: *****
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23 August 2016 and would like to draw your attention to the following:
1. I deny any debt to your client. The £174.00 is the sum of £120.00 PCN Charge plus £54.00 your legal fees.
2. I did not “suggest” I was not the driver of the car. I clearly stated I was not the driver.
3. I do not know who the driver was on 16 March 2012. Even if I did it would be impossible to provide you with that information “within 7 days” as you letter arrived on Thursday 25th August - just before a Bank Holiday weekend.
4. You referenced the case Elliot Vs Loake despite my pointing out to you that it does not apply in this case.
5. Your extract From the DVLA Release of Information document does not address my request that you cease processing my data.
6. your reference to the £100.00 PCN charge does not match with point 1, where the PCN charge is clearly £120.00 (£174.00 minus £54.00 legal fees).
7. Your reference to ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) is not relevant in this case.
8. Your statement that “the relevant car parking Codes of Practice also gives guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge” seems to be an error as you are asking me to pay a charge of £120.00. See also points 1 and 6.
9. Referencing the “detailed terms and conditions located within the Car Park” is not very helpful as I have already stated that I was not in that car park.
Finally, I was staying in a hotel in Basingstoke at a family event over the weekend 16 - 18 March 2012. I was not the driver of the vehicle on 16th March 2012. I do not know who was driving the vehicle on that date.

Yours Faithfully
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 14:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 17:25
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Don't post to the court

You will hand deliver a folder, nicely divided and referrenced , to the court. This has all your photos etc referenced there
Series of emails to the claimant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 21:02
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



Thank you, nosferatu. I will be stationery shopping tomorrow.
Having read other people's experiences of emailing the claimant's solicitor, I can only hope that I select the appropriate email address for them on this occasion. happy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:24
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



My bundles were delivered yesterday before the deadline - by hand to the Court and by email to the Claimant.
Very soon after my email was sent, I received their witness statement and exhibit.

I've read through it several times. It seems that they are relying on PEvBeavis and the presumption that I was the driver.
I'm also aware that there are parts of my defence which they are not addressing - the refusal to provide copies of photographic evidence and documents and that I can prove I was not the driver.
It seems that no LBC was necessary as I would have been aware of their "intention to proceed to Court proceedings should no resolution be found".
The Claimant believes that I did not attempt to "substantively engage" with them.
I think this may be as a result of my ignoring their "discount offer" as I responded to all other letters from BWLegal.
Their references to the appeals process and POPLA are irrelevant. I never saw the pcn and the 28 days had passed by the time I got the NTO. POPLA had not come into being until later in 2012.

I'm still trawling through and making notes.

I’ve saved it in batches because of upload size limitations. The images of the contracts, the car in the car park and signage take up too much space so I’ve left them out. I found the parking agent’s pcn and notes quite interesting. The letter dated 6 September 2016 was quite a surprise as I never received it. It’s a response to my letter dated 2 Sept 2016 - the one I attached in my opening post.
Having trouble deleting attachments to post the second batch!
Any ideas on how to organise my thoughts/notes round this would be very welcome.Attached File  1._BWLegal_redacted_WS_compressed.pdf ( 715.24K ) Number of downloads: 15
Attached File  2._BWLegal_redacted_exhibits.compressed.pdf ( 499.62K ) Number of downloads: 17



This post has been edited by Persephone: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclocross
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 06:59
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,032



A detail, but maybe helpful:

At paragraph 8 of their WS it is claimed that the Percy Car Park, Percy Street, Newcastle Upon-Tyne, NE1 4PW is actually located in Gallowgate, Strawberry Place,
and a contract dated 2007 is adduced for the Gallowgate car park to support the charge at the Percy car park.

I know that the VCS-infested Gallowgate car park is behind the Strawberry pub, off Strawberry Lane. That car park is not on Percy Street. Furthermore, until February 2016 the
Gallowgate car park was a Newcastle City Council operated car park.
See https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/...et_26.02.18.pdf

Something doesn't add up.

This post has been edited by cyclocross: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 07:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 08:45
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



Thanks Cyclocross. I know the one you're referring to behind the Strawberry. That's still in existence. The Percy Car Park (Hanro) is the land adjacent to that, behind what was Millers Auction rooms, and has been developed since its sale in 2016.
http://www.kier.co.uk/press-office/press-r...-portfolio.aspx
The Claimant's WS included copies of their contract with Hanro so I think that's not worth arguing in my case. It was worth asking, though.
The council do seem to have outsourced much of car parking administration to VCS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:05
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dont use the forum to host - scan and host at tinypics or somewhere similar. Even drop box would be betetr (although I cant see dropbox etc links while at work)

Go through their WS and create your Skeleton Argument.

Summarise their failings to prove their claim - for example that despite making no assumptions, they have assumed youre the driver despite your explicit statement otherwise, which is supported by your evidence at reference...

State their failure to issue a letter before claim is evidence of unreasonable conduct. Add in the other elemtns as this supports your claim for ADDITIONAL costs under CPR27.14.(2)(g) and write your costs schedule.

I cant check those just yet, but if you CAN host on tinypics you can have it load it here and more people will see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:35
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



Thanks nosferatu, I'll rearranged my notes and create a Skeleton Argument. We're completing a "Notice of McKenzie Friend" so my husband can act as a second pair of ears and keep me on track.

It's been useful going through the images more thoroughly. There are some interesting anomalies when looking at Pages 5, 9, 13, 14 & 18 the car is in the wrong position on P13 and there are no signs in front of the car in the parking agent's photos. Although I wasn't going to go into arguments about signage because I wasn't in the car park on that day, it's another example of their carelessness.
I have kept all my receipts and my printer's list of completed print jobs shows the astonishing amount of time (and paper and ink) I have put into this.

I'm posting 16 of the 18 images - if the tinypics urls work.


1.
2.
3.


This post has been edited by Persephone: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:42
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:53
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
13.
14.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclocross
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 18:43
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,032



These cases should help to fend off their attempt to transfer liablity to the keeper:

To rebut their assertion that Elliot v Loake allows a presumption of the identity of the driver, in addition to Excel v Lamoureux, there are other cases where
the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, including Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016, and Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016.

To rebut their claim that CPS v AJH films transfers liability to the owner, here are two cases to be aware of:
(1) Vehicle Control Services v Hall C9DP7T5D 12/06/2017. Claim dismissed. CPS v AJH Films is not relevant. If the Claimant wants to pursue the defendant as keeper, it must comply with the requirements of PoFA.
(2) Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062. On appeal it was found that CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation.

You are not a company and the driver is neither your agent nor employee. VCS cannot use this case to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper of the vehicle.

Lots more here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5672664
(Credit to beamerguy and the Parking Prankster.)

Good luck!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 20:55
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



QUOTE
These cases should help to fend off their attempt to transfer liability to the keeper:


Thanks again, cyclocross.
They do seem to have set their hearts on the PEvBeavis and wasn't ElliotvLoake a criminal case? The AJH Films is new to me so there'll be some research to do.

Going through the images in their WS has brought out some very interesting details. Page 6 Notice to Owner has been in my possession for over 6 years.
Just above "DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE" is written "LIABILITY FOR THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) LIES WITH THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE".
It's also on the Final Demand Notice issued a month later. Clearly I'm not the only one not to have noticed this.

I have never been into a court building in my life until last Friday when I delivered my WS. I feel apprehensive about the hearing so I do need to be well prepared.
A Skeleton Argument and my McKenzie Friend will be a great help.

I'm very grateful for the support, ideas and encouragement given by forum members.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 21:54
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,748
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Small claims court is not like what you see on TV. The judge is the one that comes in last and has a bigger desk all to himself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclocross
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 21:58
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,032



QUOTE
"LIABILITY FOR THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) LIES WITH THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE"


Exactly. You were not the driver and PoFA had not been enacted yet to enable them to transfer liability to the keeper. VCS/Excel/BW Legal try to twist Elliot v Loake and/or AJH Films in an attempt to
transfer liabilty to the keeper. You have to show that neither does, in fact, transfer liability to you. If your defence or witness statement did not strongly rebut keeper liabilty then it should be foremost in your SA and in Court. Without keeper liabilty, they lose.

VCS -v- Persephone and Hades! Should be interesting...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 08:12
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



AJH films is that an employer instructing an employee to do something means the employer can be liable. So you state that you are a private individual, the driver that day wasnt you, and whoever it was they certainly were not your employee (you dont have any!) )and were not therefore considered under any form of law of agency, so you are confused as to why the C is asserting this despite having no proof. THis isnt a witness statement, but a guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Thu, 10 May 2018 - 20:04
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



I've spent nearly three weeks going through the claimant's witness statement and exhibits so thoroughly that I've confused myself.
I have been trying to prepare a skeleton argument but I think I've ended up writing the witness statement I would have written if I'd had the information I needed.

I'd be very grateful if anyone could take the time to read through and comment on what I've written.
If nothing else, I've now got a better idea of how I want to respond to their WS.

QUOTE
Defendant

SKELETON ARGUMENT on behalf of XXXXXXXt

1. Background
I, XXXXX of XXXXXXXX am the unrepresented Defendant in this claim and the registered keeper of the Ford XXXXXX. The Claimant alleges that I am responsible for an unpaid PCN placed on my car on 16/3/2012.
The Claimant’s photo of the PDT on the car’s windscreen, JI1 Page 15, shows a payment of £2.40 and an expiry time of 14.13. The PCN, Pages 4 & 5, was issued at 14.23 and the “Lady Rtnd” at 14.25. The £120 charge was claimed for a 12 minute overstay - £10 for each minute.

2. I was not the driver
The Claimant did not identify the driver. I was not the driver of the vehicle on 16th March 2012. I do not know who the driver was. The Claimant's solicitor has been informed of this fact on at least two occasions before the issue of the claim (Exhibits 4 & 7) and in paragraph 4 of my defence.
I have proof that I was staying in a hotel in Basingstoke over the weekend 16th-18th March 2012. (Exhibits 14.A & 14.B).

3. No Keeper Liability
VCS sent a Notice to Owner, dated 16/4/2012, (Exhibit 1) and a Final Demand Prior to Court Action, dated 2/5/2012 (Exhibit 2). Both state: LIABILITY FOR THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) LIES WITH THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE.
On the Claim Form, throughout the Particulars of Claim is the assumption that the Defendant is liable for the PCN charge. (Exhibit 8)
The claimant has knowingly issued the claim against a party that has no liability.

4. Pre-POFA
The alleged contravention took place before the enactment of The Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, and the Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the registered keeper.
The Claimant’s solicitor informed me in their letter of 23/8/2016 that their client did not rely on POFA and referred me to the case of Elliott v Loake. (Exhibits 5&5A).
As the Claimant is unable to rely on POFA or keeper liability, they have stated that they are "entitled to proceed on the reasonable presumption that the registered keeper was the driver on the date of the contravention." (Claimant's WS, paragraph 45)
They have assumed that I am the driver despite my explicit statement otherwise, which is supported by my evidence at paragraph 2 above.

5. Failure to send Letter of Claim
The Claimant failed to send a Letter of Claim.
The first I knew of the claim being issued was when I received a Claim Form from the CCBC on 29/1/18. (Exhibit 8), not having received any correspondence from the Claimant since my letter to them dated 2/9/2016 (Exhibit 7).
On 1/2/18 received from BW Legal - Notice of County Court Claim Issued - dated 29/1/2018. (Exhibit 9)
The Claimant has referred to this omission in their WS paragraphs 49-50. They contend that no Letter of Claim was necessary as I would have been aware of their "intention to proceed to Court proceedings should no resolution be found".

6.Failure to disclose a cause of action
The Particulars of Claim states, “for the sum of £120 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)”, which did not give clear indication of the basis on which the claim was brought. It failed to establish a cause of action which would enable me prepare a specific defence. There is nothing which could be considered a fair exchange of information. (Exhibit 18A) Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol.

The Claimant’s WS Paragraphs 24-30 begins with, “The cause of action is for breach of contract as set out in paragraphs 9 to 18 of this witness statement.” There is no reference to “breach of contract” on the Claim Form or in the Claimant’s Notice of County Court Claim Issued” dated 29/1/18 (Exhibits 8 & 9).
This is explained by the Claimant in paragraph 37 of their WS, under the heading of Compliance with CPR 16 and 7.3 Practice Direction 16, where the Claimant has selected isolated points that make a nonsense of the Practice Direction.
For example, “Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars.”
The phrase “_breach_of_contract_” uses 20 characters.
The claimant then failed to include or abide by the remaining directions: “or (2) served and filed by the claimant separately from the claim form in accordance with paragraph 6 but the claimant must – (a) state that detailed particulars of claim will follow; and (b) include a brief summary of the claim, in the online claim form in the section headed ‘particulars of claim’.”

7. Refusal to provide information
The Claimant's solicitor has refused requests sent on 5th February by mail and email (Exhibits 10 & 11) to provide copies of photographic evidence and data that VCS has claimed to possess to support the claim. (Exhibits 1 & 2)
This evidence has only now been made available to me as it is included in the Claimant’s WS.
This unreasonable refusal has been a disadvantage. The Claimant’s exhibits JI1 pages 1-23 would have been invaluable to me in writing both my Defence and my Witness Statement.
I had never seen the PCN dated 16/3/2012 (Claimant’s Exhibit pages 4-5)
Whilst the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the email and letter, they ignored my request for evidence. (Exhibits 12 & 13)
Withholding information, despite being asked for, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.

8. Unreasonable delay in issuing the claim
Paragraph 23.6 of the Claimant’s WS states, “The Defendant alleges the interest Claimed is unreasonable”, misrepresenting what I actually wrote in Paragraph 9 of my defence where I referred to the “unreasonable delay”.
The Claimant has not provided any explanation for the unreasonable delay of almost 6 years in issuing a County Court Claim having sent me, as the registered keeper, a “Final Demand Prior to Court Action” dated 2/5/2012. Six years’ interest, £64.26, amounts to more 50% interest on the original sum of £120.

Until the Notice of County Court Claim Issued arrived on 1/2/2018 I had received no correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitor after my letter of 2/9/2016, although they have included in their Witness Statement (P23) a copy of a letter, dated 6/9/2016, which I never received. (Claimant’s Exhibit JI1 p23)

9. Claimant’s contention that the Defendant should have contested the PCN
The Claimant’s WS, paragraph 20, states that the defendant had three options “upon the PCN being issued”.
a) disclose full details of the driver;
b) appeal the PCN to the Claimant;
c) appeal to POPLA to have the PCN independently adjudicated.
None of these applied to me as registered keeper in 2012.
a) I did not and do not know who the driver was.
b) I have never had sight of the PCN other than the blurred image in the Claimant’s witness statement pages 4/5 which I received on 23/4/2018. By the time I received the NTO, more than 28 days had passed and an appeal and/or payment at the lower rate was no longer an option. The NTO clearly stated that the PCN was the driver’s liability.
c) POPLA, like POFA, had not yet come into effect.

According to the Claimant’s witness statement, paragraphs 21/22, as a result of not my doing any of the above, a failure to “substantively engage”, the Claimant has brought proceedings. This is repeated in their WS paragraph 50.

10. ParkingEye v Beavis - rebuttal
The present case can be easily distinguished as the Claimant has not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The ParkingEye v Beavis case concerned an overstay in a car park where motorists initially had two free hours of parking. Mr Beavis had challenged an £85 charge.
The Percy car park was a 24 hour, 7 days a week, £1.20 per hour Pay & Display parking area.

In the ParkingEye v Cargius case (Dec 2014), the Claimant brought proceedings to recover a parking charge of £100 issued as a result of an overstay in a pay & display car park in Gwynedd. In her judgment (paragraph 13), Deputy District Judge C. Mahy stated that, “this case can be distinguished from the Somerfield and the Beavis & Wardley cases in that both these cases dealt with free car parks, where the only charges recovered by ParkingEye were from those motorists who overstayed.”.

11.CPS v AJH Films - rebuttal
The Claimant’s WS , paragraphs 46-47, makes reference to the case of CPS v AJH Films Ltd (2015).
This case concerned the driver of a company-owned van and the keeper, AJH Films, was found liable for the actions of an employee when driving as part of their employment. I am not, and never have been, an employer. I am a private individual. I do not know who was driving my privately owned car on the day in question. It was not an employee as I don’t have any.
16th March 2012 was before POFA and there is no keeper liability.

12. Elliot v Loake - rebuttal.
The Claimant’s solicitor informed me in their letter of 23/8/2016 that their client did not rely on POFA and referred to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver. (Exhibits 5&5A)
This presumption “that the registered keeper was the driver” is repeated in the Claimant’s WS , paragraph 45.
This is an incorrect representation of the criminal case for the following reasons:

The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the evidence that he was the driver, and not, as the Claimant incorrectly states, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.

In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.

Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.

The Loake case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.

13. Contradictions within the Claimant’s Witness Statement and Exhibits
A.The VCS Parking Agent’s sketch of the position of the vehicle on 16/3/2012, Page 6, contradicts the position marked on the overhead plan, Page 13.
B. The artwork design of the information sign, Page 7, and the photos of the signs situated with the car park, Pages 8/12, shows a different style of signage to the sign apparent on the wall to the right in the photo of the vehicle on 16/3/2012. (JI1 page 18)
C. The Claimant states at the end of their letter dated 23/8/2016, page 22, (and my Exhibits 5&5A), “payment of such fees was detailed in the terms and conditions located with the Car Park”. The artwork design of the information sign, Page 7, contradicts this.
D. The overhead plan, an overlaid Google satellite image of the car park, Page 13, purportedly indicates the position of signs on 16/3/2012. The photo of the car, Page 18, shows no signs in front of the vehicle and no wall or posts which would support any signs.
E. The Claimant’s witness statement, paragraph 13, states, “I am instructed that although the images pre-date the Contravention Date, that they are a true and accurate reflection of the signage with the Car Park on the Contravention Date.” Junayd Imran, the author of this WS, had apparently been erroneously instructed.
F. Paragraph 58 of the WS begins with, “As the Claimant was an established member of the BPA on the Contravention Date, it was required to adhere to the BPA’s Code of Practice”. Paragraph 63’s final sentence is, “The relevant Car Parking Code of Practice also gives guidance that a £100 (sic) is a reasonable sum to charge”.
The £120 charge claimed from me exceeds the BPA’s recommended maximum of £100.
G. The WS page containing paragraphs 54-62 appears to be duplicated except for the amount of the charge in paragraph 60. On the first of these pages the charge is £120 and on the following page it is £100. I referred to this ongoing confusion in my Witness Statement, page 2, paragraph 16.
H. The Claimant’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) case is surprising in the light of the judges’ repeated references to the £85 penalty being within the BPA code of Practice recommendation of a maximum of £100.

14. The Claimant’s unreasonable conduct
A) No Letter Before Claim
The Claimant has not complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraph 3, (Exhibit 18B) as No Letter of Claim or initial information was sent to me.
Paragraph 7, Compliance with this Protocol, states, “If a matter proceeds to litigation, the court will expect the parties to have complied with this Protocol. The court will take into account non-compliance when giving directions for the management of proceedings.”
B) Refusal to provide any evidence when requested on 5/2/2018.
C) Long delays in contact: May 2012 - July 2016 and September 2016 - February 2018.
D) The claim that the Defendant’s non response to a PCN she did not receive and her failure to use an appeals process that did not exist caused the Claimant to issue proceedings, C’s WS paragraphs 21-22.

15. COSTS
Represents “the result of a genuine attempt by the Defendant to estimate the amount of time and effort expended” in responding to a County Court Claim issued against a party that has no liability. There are receipts for stationery, printing and postage. THIS WILL BE REWORDED
CPR27.14.(2)(g)


This post has been edited by Persephone: Thu, 10 May 2018 - 21:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:54
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You should also claim for your time in preparing th claim - £19 per hour
ALso include yoru ordinary costs, £95 max for a half day loss of leave or loss ofpay, mileage and parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 17:37
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 14:54) *
You should also claim for your time in preparing th claim - £19 per hour
ALso include yoru ordinary costs, £95 max for a half day loss of leave or loss ofpay, mileage and parking.


I don't supposed for a minute that I'd get costs for the 50+ hours I've spent researching, preparing, writing and rewriting my defence, witness statement and skeleton argument! But I might try for 15 hours.

I'm a 69 year old retired teacher, thank goodness- no loss of pay.

At what point do I present the SA? And does the Claimant get a copy?

The Claim was transferred to the county court at Newcastle on 12th March and WS etc were exchanged on 23rd April. It's a busy combined courts so it could be some time before I get a hearing date.

I know that I wouldn't have got this far without this forum.

Many, many thanks to those who subscribe and, especially, to those who respond so helpfully.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 20:17
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Anyone else think the signs above the yellow rail barrier appear badly photo-shopped?

And have they produced no photo of the car and a sign in the same image?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 20:44
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 21:17) *
Anyone else think the signs above the yellow rail barrier appear badly photo-shopped?

And have they produced no photo of the car and a sign in the same image?


I thought some of these were photo-shopped. In one the blue poles don't seem to join up.

I ran out of space when uploading images. Here is the car with a very different sign on the wall over to the right.
I don't think any of the signage photos are from 2012.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Persephone
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 21:06
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,742



I made a collage of signs. Top left is a photo I took last week (May 2018) of a sign remaining from 2016 on the wall - it's covered in concrete but still quite legible.
The car park was no longer in existence in 2016.

The bottom photo of my grey car shows the 2012 sign in exactly the same position. The sign, top right, is dated July 2011 and supposedly was still in the car park in March 2012.

3 completely different signs.


]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 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, 16th August 2018 - 17:33
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.