Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    songofsixpence
    DEAL court claim received
    • #1
    • 5th Dec 14, 8:19 PM
    DEAL court claim received 5th Dec 14 at 8:19 PM
    Hi,
    Please can anyone help me with my defence of a court claim received last week? It relates to a Coop car park parking charge, at the end of Oct 2012. I ignored all letters as this seemed to be advice at the time (obviously a mistake after the changes).
    I've sent the acknowledgement of service. I've contacted the Coop - they won't help. I've reported suspected bogus solicitor, Mr Shwarts.
    I've spent this last week reading stickies and previous very helpful relevant threads. My circumstances seem very similar to a thread by bluetoffee1878 on 24/11, where an outline defence is shown. (I was hoping to use this as a template for my own defence.)
    I have 3 questions I'd really appreciate some help with.
    I think the car park was a free 2 hour stay, and had automatic cameras at the entry/exit. I do believe I was actually parked in the parking bay for the 2 hours, but being new to the area, and meeting someone there, I drove around a while looking for them, so the time on leaving was 12 minutes over. What is the best way to present this in my defence statement? Also, is it worth requesting evidence that the camera was properly maintained and accurate?

    I've noticed references to the witness statement, submitted at a later date. I'm feeling very scared about appearing in court, and messing things up - could anyone explain how this differs from the defence statement, please? When does it have to be submitted?

    In bluetoffee's thread there is a reference to the 'notice to keeper sent being non compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act' I have studied the Act at the relevant section but still unclear why it would be non compliant - can anyone explain?

    Finally - I'm worried about the xmas post delaying my submission - as I received the claim form by post, is it possible to submit the defence statement online?

    Thanks for reading (and apologies if I've inadvertently not followed forum etiquette).
Page 2
  • songofsixpence
    It seems DEAL are not giving up yet! Despite the claim being struck out in April, and following the Beavis case, they have sent me a letter advising me they are going back to court if I don't pay up within 7 days. This time their cost are listed as exceeding £500.

    Included with their letter is a detailed witness statement from Ashley Cohen, which sets out the case for breach of contract. Among several other cases, it also cites Parking Eye v Beavis to show their costs are reasonable and do not need to be GPEOL.

    A letter is enclosed from Co op's solicitor confirming CEL have the authority to issue parking charge notices.

    This is mounting up to a serious amount of money at risk for me. Can anyone advise me how to proceed please? Should I wait until I hear if DEAL apply to have the case reinstated and they pay the hearing fee? Or should I consider paying their demands of £250? After the Beavis case I just don't know!
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 6:28 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    very foolish people trying again out being struck out ,


    I hope Me Swartzs/swarts , can make an appearance ,


    bring it on , I say!
    Last edited by enfield freddy; 13-05-2015 at 6:39 PM.
  • songofsixpence
    Thank you enfield freddy, perhaps I am panicking too early!
    I have just hunted out the letter from the court dated 1st April. It says the claim is struck out. The parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside if they make an application within 7 days with appropriate fee.
    Sorry if this is a silly question - but does this mean DEAL cannot restart the same claim against me as they are out of time? They are using the same claim number in their letter. Could they perhaps start again with a new claim entirely?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th May 15, 7:01 PM
    • 31,060 Posts
    • 15,091 Thanks
    Quentin
    They may have challenged the strike out. Though you should have heard from the court.


    You could contact the court and enquire.


    Otherwise they are "entitled" to start a new case over the same debt - though that would have a new case number
    Last edited by Quentin; 13-05-2015 at 7:08 PM.
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 7:01 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    I,ve been googling stayed and struck out , as fast as you ,


    more input needed by the skilled but the way I read it


    struck out and stayed are different , one is the end , one can carry on and re try , trouble is google keeps chucking up answers from the USA


    without any feedback from hear , get a free 1/2 hr with a solicitor to advise ,


    wonder if they have got that docci showing swarts heratige?


    one thing that struck me , coop letter , must be old , as there is a case , 50 coop stave V deal awaiting , if coop say yes to allowing court action , it mucks there cases up proper
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 13th May 15, 7:09 PM
    • 14,799 Posts
    • 13,456 Thanks
    bod1467
    Struck out means it's Monty Python's parrot - dead. If DEAL didn't challenge the strike out within the noted period (7 days?) then they can't resurrect the same claim.
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 7:13 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    rather than contacting cel/deal , is this info (re applied) available from a local court or Northampton , or will it have a different claim number?




    bluff or not?


    £500 costs, should be fun watching them ask for that
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th May 15, 7:15 PM
    • 6,156 Posts
    • 4,962 Thanks
    The Deep
    If the judge believed you last time, why should he not believe you again? Let them take you to court with their ridiculous claim and counter claim for time, anxiety, stress. If you are not risk averse, employ a solicitor and claim unreasonable behaviour for costs.

    This is one of the most discredited PPCs around. If you are prepared to throw a little money at it I am sure that they will blink first.

    Google "CEL win in court" and "CEL lose in court", they make interesting reading.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • songofsixpence
    It was struck out 1st April.

    The letter from DEAL is in 3 parts.

    1. A letter demanding payment of £250 within 7 days or threat of court action incurring fees above £500.

    2. A comprehensive 1st witness statement from Ashley Cohen, outlining the case in detail and citing 3 cases, including Beavis

    3. The copy of the solicitor's letter from the Co op to CEL, dated 15th April 2015. It states 'We understand that it has been suggested online and elsewhere that CEL did not have the authority of the Co-operative Group to issue parking charge notices on its car parks.
    We also understand that defences have been filed suggesting..(etc).
    We hereby confirm, on behalf of the Group that CEL had authority to issue PNC's in respect of car parks which were managed on behalf of the Group...
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 7:29 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    I suspect that this is all fake , and that coop letter might prove to be interesting to view ,


    with the friction between the coop and cel (creative?)/deal and there ongoing court case that letter would shoot the coop down


    goto the parking pranksters blog http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/ look down the right , jan/feb/march , all about deal inc exact copies of your Ashley cole letter , and the fact that the prankster thinks he,s fiddling costs
  • songofsixpence
    You are right enfield freddy, it is almost identical to the letters shown on Parking Prankster, apart from the Co op letter.

    Deal are using the same court claim number on their letter to me, and have made their witness statement look like a court document which it is not (- and it has the wrong court listed),
    I will wait to see what transpires next.
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 7:52 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    can you scan , or photo the coop letter and host it?


    PM sent
    Last edited by enfield freddy; 13-05-2015 at 7:54 PM.
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 13th May 15, 8:39 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 1,136 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    Email me the letter from the co-op and I will blog it. Seems very funny for the co-op to be doing this. Perhaps it was a 'deal' that if CEL dropped all cases against co-op employees, then the co-op would write that letter


    prankster@parking-prankster.com
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
  • songofsixpence
    Thank you enfield freddy and Parking Prankster, I have emailed you with photos of the letter.
    • henrik777
    • By henrik777 13th May 15, 8:59 PM
    • 2,079 Posts
    • 26,946 Thanks
    henrik777
    Email me the letter from the co-op and I will blog it. Seems very funny for the co-op to be doing this. Perhaps it was a 'deal' that if CEL dropped all cases against co-op employees, then the co-op would write that letter


    prankster@parking-prankster.com
    Originally posted by Parking-Prankster
    Happened in another case elsewhere too.
    • Marktheshark
    • By Marktheshark 13th May 15, 9:01 PM
    • 5,426 Posts
    • 6,800 Thanks
    Marktheshark
    Have you considered turning the tables, I would say you have quite a good case for bringing a claim for Harassment damages.
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 9:14 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    photo link here


    click to view:


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM1.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM2.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM3.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM4.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM5.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM6.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM7.JPG


    http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM8.JPG




    lets see what the pranky thinks the implication of this letter is ,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th May 15, 9:32 PM
    • 11,801 Posts
    • 17,982 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    This may be a trade-off for not pursuing Co-op employees their PCNs. However, that letter in no way reflects the requirements of the BPA CoP in the context of 'authority'.

    7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question.Theauthorisationmustgiveyoutheauthority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.
    If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    The written authorisation must also set out:
    the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcementoperations,includinganyrestrictionsonho urs of operation
    enforcement
    who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation.
    6.9 We will inform the DVLA immediately if you are suspended or expelled from membership, or if your non- compliance with the Code is sufficiently serious.
    Written authorisation of the landowner
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and
    Excuse formatting - direct copy and paste from CoP!
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • enfield freddy
    • By enfield freddy 13th May 15, 9:44 PM
    • 5,920 Posts
    • 3,909 Thanks
    enfield freddy
    closer to this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8ToW7sLjfQ8/VLFcw3n-SpI/AAAAAAAAC-w/M-bkp883b-8/s1600/coopauth.jpg


    I believe the OP has a similarly worded docci , and the coop one was added for "effect"
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 13th May 15, 9:50 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 1,136 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    Several people have now contacted me. I have emailed Mr Jones of the Co-op for his take on the matter.


    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/have-to-co-op-cut-deal-with-civil.html


    Perhaps I have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

105Posts Today

1,760Users online

Martin's Twitter