£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Jonathon365 · 5 September 2017 at 3:08PM

Hello, today 05/09/2017 the subject access request response has been received.

Turns out the reason they never cashed the cheque was because they simply didn't need it. The original cheque was contained in their response.

It was a very detailed and thorough response. It contained pictures of the vehicle in all violations, data from the DVLA, information from the parking attendants (this was just the attendant(s) name and the yellow sticker info), and the debt collection letters.

The bad news...4 / 5 pictures show the vehicle was parked for longer than the 10 minutes called out the Defence They vary, but usually around 15 minutes, with the latest showing the vehicle parked for 30 minutes. - This is deeply worrying.

The 1/5 that supports the defence shows the vehicle parked for just 2 minutes.

Please can you advise? I assume it is now likely for the claimant to win the case in Court? If so, Is there any action to be taken that would now avert court action? Paying up would be preferable to a negative CCJ.

nosferatu1001 · 5 September 2017 at 5:48PM

Losing in court doesn't mean you have a ccj
If you pay within one month then nothing is recorded. No credit file impact.

Jonathon365 · 5 September 2017 at 6:23PM

So, is the best course of action bearing in mind 4/5 of the evidence support the claimant to just go to court and lose?

a) Are there any other angles for a defence? I've read the scope for adding major items to a defence is limited at witness statement stage. Is there something else to add that may just swing it?

b) Is it worth just contacting the claimant and suggesting mediation? Or is it too late for that now?

c) @Nosferatu1001 - Thank you, however I have 2 further points - What about for monthly payments? That the keeper's preferred option, especially with the claim being for a relatively large amount. Secondly, if it goes to court and the keeper loses, surely the eventual payment will be higher than both the original claim and any mediation attempts?

d) Any recommendations on what to do next now that I've seen their response to the subject access request?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad · 5 September 2017 at 7:06PM

Is it worth just contacting the claimant and suggesting mediation?

No. Carry on.

So, is the best course of action bearing in mind 4/5 of the evidence support the claimant to just go to court and lose?

But you might well win.

Or, you might at least when looking at all the evidence, win 1 or more, out of the five.

And if not, at least you can state that the 'additional charges' and add-ons are not part of any contract, are plucked out of thin air and constitute 'double recovery' which is disallowed under the POFA schedule 4 and were not quantified on the signs.

Even the Beavis case only allowed PE to recover the £85 'charge' on the signs and no more, and the Supreme Court discussed and all parties acknowledged that the £85 itself was already inflated to include a significant percentage for profit. So more cannot be added randomly as if it was part of the alleged contract.

You said it was (probably) 5 x £75 - was it - now presumably they have shown you 5 x NTKs?

That is NOT a sum equalling £860!

On the 28/06/2017 the keeper of a vehicle received a claim form from First Parking to the amount of £860.00 (£800.00 claim + £80.00 fees). The claimant has signed off as First Parking LLP.

The claim is based on 5 parking violations:
- 07/03/2016
- 04/04/2016
- 26/04/2016
- 04/05/2016
- 09/06/2016

Due to the timing, The keeper is unsure how much he claim was initially worth but think they were each £75.00.

today 05/09/2017 the subject access request response has been received.

The SAR is not their evidence and WS, though, it it? You can't guess that they will organise the WS and evidence to include all of that bumf, since the SAR isn't part of the court process. Far more likely the WS and evidence will be thrown together, full of the usual holes!

Any recommendations on what to do next now that I've seen their response to the subject access request?

Nothing. Crack on with preparing your WS and evidence - when do you have to get that in by?

Jonathon365 · 5 September 2017 at 7:22PM

Thank you Coupon-mad, your message gave me much relief.
To answer your questions:

1) Yep, 5 NTK were issued in the post. The SAR provides all the info for each of the 5 occurrences. In fact, the SAR includes 2 other parking violations in 2015 that were never followed up on by the claimant.

2) You're right, the SAR is not their WS nor evidence. The reason I think/thought it is significant is because the claimant has photographic evidence that directly contradicts the defence for 4 of the 5 occurrences. One would assume this evidence has to form a key part in their eventual WS.

3) No date to prepare the WS or evidence yet. Still waiting for a date to be confirmed for the hearing.

From what you've said, it's likely the claimant will only be somewhat successful and able to request £300 (£75 x 4). A number much easier to stomach.

Coupon-mad · 5 September 2017 at 7:32PM

You're right, the SAR is not their WS nor evidence. The reason I think/thought it is significant is because the claimant has photographic evidence that directly contradicts the defence for 4 of the 5 occurrences. One would assume this evidence has to form a key part in their eventual WS.

Probably...if they get their act together, but honestly, these firms rarely do!

And as for your defence, how are you meant to recall how many minutes it took you in 2016, on some unremarkable occasions, when you were undertaking normal everyday student task of unloading or loading books borrowed from the library. Unloading - even for over ten minutes - is STILL not 'parking', according to HHJ Charles Harris in Jopson v Home Guard.

And does the signage actually say in legible lettering, prominently displayed, that cars are restricted to ten minutes if loading/unloading? Is it even a feature of the terms? Is loading/unloading even mentioned (I'm trying to remember!!).

Jonathon365 · 4 October 2017 at 8:24PM

Update:

I received a letter dated 12 September 2017 titled Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing).

The letter states that the hearing will take place in early November and requests the claimant pays a court trial fee of £80.00 by the 10th October.

No action required from either myself or forum readers, but thought I'd post an update to document the entire experience.

Coupon-mad · 4 October 2017 at 8:47PM

I would read it again. Your date to exchange statements and evidence is in that letter.

Jonathon365 · 4 October 2017 at 9:11PM

Right so re-read and the only mention of any action from me is:

number 6) Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

@Coupon-mad is this what you are referring to?

Coupon-mad · 4 October 2017 at 10:11PM

Yep, that's the usual wording, so this isn't correct:

No action required from either myself or forum readers

£860 Private Parking County Claim - Urgent Help!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free