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
    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 4th Aug 16, 12:22 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 7Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    SCS Law Letter before claim for multiple PCNs-over £1000!!
    • #1
    • 4th Aug 16, 12:22 PM
    SCS Law Letter before claim for multiple PCNs-over £1000!! 4th Aug 16 at 12:22 PM
    Hi all

    A few weeks back I received a letter from SCS Law on behalf of UKPC for multiple PCNs for overstaying in a free car park. The letter claimed to be a letter before claim. The total claim was over £1000 including fees added on per ticket.
    The dates of the PCNs range from early 2015 and one earlier this year.

    I have read the Newbies thread and followed the advice and sent the initial letter to SCS Law as recommended by the thread which tells SCS law that their letter is insufficient according to the Practice Directions. The guidance said to expect a template letter but the letter I received looked tailor made and they also sent a pack containing photos and letters which I didn't expect at all.

    I haven't seen any other advice but I wanted to be sure that the advice in the thread regarding responding to Letters before claim was still up to date (have the practice directions changed for example) and whether to still follow through with the second letter as described or if any of you have any other advice that could help?

    Many many thanks.
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Oct 16, 1:58 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Right - I think you need to really go for COMPLAINTS this week, to the SRA and to the retails/managing agents for the site landowner.

    What happened when you complained to each and every retailer Head Office? If you didn't, do this now and also on the retail park's own webpage/facebook page if they have one, and by Twitter if you use it. Google the place to find out who runs it.

    It is not too late to get these unfair charges cancelled by the retailers but you will have to be quick. Going in and speaking to the staff is often hopeless but assertive but measured 'customer ranting' on Social Media and at Head Office CS staff of National Retailers often gets such charges cancelled.

    Particularly if you can find which managing agent runs the site itself and complain to them about UKPC, who after all have 'form' in 2015 for ticketing fraud which was investigated by the authorities, in terms of faking and doctoring photos about alleged 'overstays'. This is not a firm they should be allowing within spitting distance of shoppers' cars:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    You could also submit a complaint about SCS Law to the SRA, online. Easy to google & find the SRA complaints page.

    Do not rant about the time taken to reply. That's something and nothing and was only a few weeks.

    I'd rant to the SRA about SCS Law misleading you, an unrepresented defendant in the FIRST letter earlier on, when they lied 'ParkingEye v Beavis confirms that any amount will be recoverable provided it is proportionate to a legitimate interest.' That is not true AT ALL. The Beavis case found merely that a sum of £85 in THAT case alone, with particular signs and adequate notice of the charge, was not a penalty. But the Supreme Court Judges stated clearly that parking charges not saved by 'agreement on the charge' (clear signs stating the charge in large lettering with no ambiguity or small print) was likely to be a penalty. They certainly did not say that 'any amount will be recoverable'!

    And complain to the SRA about them adding unrecoverable sums to the original £100 (which were not on the signs and indeed the POFA prevents any sum being recovered from a keeper except the £100 on the NTK, no more random sums can be bolted on later, except for court fees/interest). And report SCS to the SRA for stating wrongly, that ADR does not have to be offered for 12 months which in fact, it does nowadays (someone else might know the law that creates that 12 month requirement!).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-10-2016 at 2:01 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 1st Oct 16, 8:16 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Thanks I will get on and do that. Is there anything I say to SCS Law in response?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 1st Oct 16, 8:32 PM
    • 5,407 Posts
    • 4,934 Thanks
    pappa golf
    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 1st Oct 16, 8:48 PM
    • 36,470 Posts
    • 73,304 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    12 month ADR requirement.

    Changes in EU law last year say that appeals should be allowed (Alternative Dispute Resolution) for up to a year.

    "It is the will of Parliament, as a result of the EU Consumer Rights Directive that ADRs must imminently be made available for not less than a year."

    I don't have a link, but the directive begins with the following,

    S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S

    2015 No. 542


    CONSUMER PROTECTION

    The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

    Made - - - - 16th March 2015
    Laid before Parliament 17th March 2015
    Coming into force for the purposes of Parts 1 to 3 7th April 2015
    for the purposes of Parts 4 & 5 9th July 2015
    The Secretary of State, as a Minister designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(a), in relation to matters relating to consumer protection(b), makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2(2) of that Act.
    PART 1
    General
    Citation and commencement
    1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. (2) Parts 1 to 3 come into force on 7th April 2015. (3) Parts 4 and 5 come into force on 9th July 2015.

    Edit.

    Try this.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/contents/made

    You will need to read it and find the 12 month bit yourself. I'm still wading through it.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 01-10-2016 at 8:51 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 1st Oct 16, 9:31 PM
    • 4,137 Posts
    • 4,753 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I therefore conclude that soon, SCS law will go through the SRA washing machine
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 1st Oct 16, 9:41 PM
    • 5,407 Posts
    • 4,934 Thanks
    pappa golf
    and if they work at the same speed as the "Mr Swartz" case , we should see an answer by 2020
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 1st Oct 16, 9:50 PM
    • 4,137 Posts
    • 4,753 Thanks
    beamerguy
    and if they work at the same speed as the "Mr Swartz" case , we should see an answer by 2020
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Don't think so pappa, you down the pub with your missus again ??
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 12th Oct 16, 8:22 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Hi all. I have submitted my SRA complaint and am in contact with the retailers at the car park to try and get the tickets cancelled. But unfortunately in the mean time, SCS Law have submitted court papers to me for the whole claim including the random costs and also posted a letter called "Particulars of Claim". Not really sure what to do next now. What is my response?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 8:35 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Too late to get it cancelled by retailers now then; you cannot complain then sit and wait. This is what happens, even with an SRA complaint in.

    You must acknowledge the claim urgently to buy time - do this online using MCOL's password on the claim form - then you defend this (worst case scenario is you should pay LESS than in the PoC, if you lose at a hearing in the end). Or they might discontinue/give up, or you may win!

    So, this is not a time to give up & pay but equally you need to be 'on it', as regards deadlines.

    Search the forum for 'UKPC claim' and read threads by people like TommyG5, badbrains89, Anthony94, IndigoMondayToyota and Bobby2k2.

    And read the NEWBIES thread heading 'Small Claim?' especially the 2nd link to bargepole's advice about what happens when, what boxes to tick/not tick!

    Tell us once you've acknowledged this and have started to draft a decent defence (there are LOADs on here to copy from, much of it generic).

    Oh, and on this forum and/or on pepipoo do not reply to any private message from a poster with less than 1000 posts to their name here. We deal with these issues openly on the forum and any pm could be from anyone at all (even the parking firm) and any private message about this is not recommended to be replied to/read.

    You can do this with our help and it is not the end of the World if you lose in the end, just do not drop the ball, keep the thread updated as soon as you have got the AoS done and a draft defence on the go.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 26th Oct 16, 12:01 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Hi all!!

    Taken a bit of time but I have my defence drafted. Hoping some of you can take a look before I send it in.

    And also if there's anything else in this procedure I've missed. Been seeing mention of "part 18" in other threads. Not sure if that's relevant to me but anything else relevant will be greatly appreciated. Defence is now posted below:

    1The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimantís case:

    i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
    ii. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the motorist
    iii. The signage did not offer a genuine contract with the motorist
    iv. Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations
    v. The Claimant has no Cause of Action
    vi. Even if a debt existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant
    vii. The Claimant has misrepresented its day-to-day business costs as a loss
    viii. The Claimant has included a solicitor charge that was not incurred

    2. The Claimant manages the car park. The Claimant is not therefore the Land-owner. Neither has it claimed to be an Agent. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that it is merely a contractor. The Claimant has not therefore explained what authority it has to bring the claim. ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land ; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings.

    3. A contract is absent with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

    4. The Defendant is aware that the Claimant relies on ParkingEye v Beavis. The Defendant submits that the present case can be distinguished for two reasons:

    ē It was established that ParkingEye paid a premium of £1000 per week to operate at the site. This was ruled to give them standing as Principal. In the present case they are acting as an contractor to the land-owner

    ē In the Beavis case there was also a clear chain of command between the land-owner and ParkingEye established by the production of original copies of the contracts

    If the Claimant wishes to rely on Beavis, the Defendant is put to proof that such a contract exists and of its content.

    Also the Claimant has claimed that ďParkingEye v Beavis confirms that any amount will be recoverable provided it is proportionate to a legitimate interestĒ which is not true. The Beavis case found that the sum of £85 in that case alone, with the particular signage and adequate notice in that case, was not a penalty.

    5. As this case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    6. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    ē as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;

    ē the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;

    ē the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and

    ē the clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs

    7. If the driver happened to see the signage (if any were present) on each occasion, signs are located at a distance in pale, unlit and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

    8. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. The Defendant refers the court to the concept of good faith as elucidated by the European Court of Justice in Aziz v Caixa díEstalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 (Para 69) regarding the Unfair Terms Directive :
    With regard to the question of the circumstances in which such an imbalance
    arises ďcontrary to the requirement of good faithĒ, having regard to the sixteenth recital in the preamble to the directive and as stated in essence by the A.G. in point AG74 of her Opinion, the national court must assess for those purposes whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations.

    The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has ignored the Governmentís clear intention as expressed in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges :

    Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
    For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.


    9. The claimantís charges are unlawful addressing the imbalance of power leaving the driver/s at a disadvantage thus the defendant denies entering a contract. If a breach of contract is identified by the court then the implications are marginal, as the driver followed majority of instruction.

    10. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not merely made a mistake when using its Principalís car park. The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing just what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments
    The Claimantís perverse business model appears to rely entirely on the income from alleged breaches of terms and conditions, not from customers that adhere to them. The cost of administration staff involved with the processing of parking notices cannot be presented as a loss because their employment is essential to the Claimantís revenue.

    11. It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was recently investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

    12. The POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

    13. The legal costs are not justified additionally it would have been factored within the additional £60 charge thus claiming again would be considered double charging creating financial gain.

    14. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Oct 16, 12:24 AM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are citing a lot of old cases, knocked out by the Beavis case, and you mention the UTCCRs, which were replaced by the CRA in 2015.

    So remove this from #2:

    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land ; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings.
    And remove #6 and #8 completely because the Beavis case killed any 'no loss' argument.

    #9 and #10 do not look like current arguments with any legs either.


    Posters called steady.alone (today) and bigsej (this month) both have threads which show a recent defence written out, albeit not a UKPC one but you will be able to see arguments that have nothing about 'loss' or GPEOL or old cases like PE v Gardam, or the Ibbotson case, or the UTCCRs. It looks as though this is based upon one from a few months back = too old.


    Remind us, was this a retail park or a residential car park or what?

    What was the contravention alleged? Was it true? What went wrong? If overstay, how long?

    What were the signs like, if they were posted earlier here, please show them again as your thread is long!

    Did UKPC serve you with a NTK in the post a month after a windscreen PCN?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 26th Oct 16, 12:07 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Hi.

    The alleged contraventions were for overstays in a retail car park. As they were all over a year ago I cannot recall if I did actually overstay and definitely not how long. I use the car park regularly so it is hard to say.

    The signs are quite high up. None of the writing is clear as it is in relatively small print. The charge for overstaying is definitely small writing.

    Regarding the "no loss" and GPEOL, I saw some recent arguments in this forum (maybe written by yourself, apologies if not the case) that Beavis did not throw out those cases but that if it can be shown that the PPC does not have a legitimate interest in the car park like it did in the Beavis case, then "no loss" and GPEOL can then be relied on.

    Is this not the case then?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Oct 16, 3:14 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, you will not be able to argue 'GPEOL' re a retail park overstay because that was exactly the situation Mr Beavis found himself in. IMHO (and I'm only an armchair lawyer of course!) only in a case where the contract is completely different and more simple (e.g. an unpaid parking tariff) can it feasibly be argued that the charge is wholly disproportionate to the tariff. Beavis killed the GPEOL argument for parking overstays, in general terms.

    However you CAN argue no 'legitimate interest' has been shown to exist because each case is different and ParkingEye's complex arrangement with the landowner was likely not to be the same as here. And you can throw in quite truthfully that you cannot recall the days on question as they were unremarkable and may not have been you driving (unless you appealed each one and said who was driving!).

    And you can throw in that there is no proof that the cameras have not merely defaulted to the daily 'first in/last out' photos (could have been a series of double visits to return items or drop a passenger off then collect them later?) on those days, as 'first in/last out' photo default is a known fault of ANPR technology. Presumably there is no evidence that UKPC have shown that they have eliminated that possibility (and they cannot disprove that 100%, because VRNs are not always captured - some cameras have a very high failure rate and missing a VRN entirely as it leaves and returns later, can be due to incorrect camera angle, or weather conditions like rain on the camera or glare).

    So even if they reeled off a list of VRN captures on those days to try to say 'look, the car only made one visit', that simply doesn't show the 'not captured' VRNs which are often 10% of vehicles but can be a lot more missed, if the camera is badly placed, not reliable or simply due to weather, glare, or lorries tailgating a car.

    Have you done the AoS earlier this month and what was the date on the claim form?

    Cue 'daytona0' turning up on this UKPC thread...(seems to be a UKPC apologist/employee so beware of that poster's rants).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 27-10-2016 at 12:18 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 26th Oct 16, 5:35 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    The car park has not got that technology. I believe it is just a guy with a cameraphone taking pictures of the cars.

    I have done the AoS and I believe the date is the 6th but I do not have it to hand so I could be wrong.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Oct 16, 12:20 AM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The car park has not got that technology. I believe it is just a guy with a cameraphone taking pictures of the cars.

    I have done the AoS and I believe the date is the 6th but I do not have it to hand so I could be wrong.
    Originally posted by DiegoFuego
    OK so call into question the reliability of the guy with the camera, bearing in mind UKPC's modus operandi and banning recently:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    There is nothing to say the camera was showing the right time, these can be so easily altered that it is scandalous. I don't suppose that any of the sets of photos show the same background or same shadows claimed to be hours apart?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 28th Oct 16, 6:04 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Hi

    The pictures they have sent are not the best quality and some of them are very similar to each other in terms of surroundings. Many of them have time stamps that are completely illegible so you couldn't say what time or day they were taken.

    In terms of my defence, if I make the edits you have suggested are there any further major points that I have missed that I should include?

    And are there any information requests I should be making or any other things I should be doing apart from submitting my initial defence?
    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 2nd Nov 16, 8:27 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Hi

    This is more to coupon-mad as she gave me the original advice but if anyone else can help that will be great.

    I am due to submit my defence and I have been looking through the threads at other defences to see if there is anything I have missed and unfortunately I am now quite confused and I need some explanation please?

    I originally placed some case law pertaining to Parkingeye and VCS and others in my defence but I was told that these cases are old and have been knocked out by Beavis. However I have been looking at others very recent defences with similar circumstances and they have those same cases in and they have not been told the same.

    What is the current advice regarding those cases? Do you put them in defences or not?

    Many thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 16, 8:31 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Show me which ones you were looking at? I haven't seen many recent ones citing 'VCS v Ibbotson' or 'PE v Sharma' if that's what you mean. And that latter case means pretty much nothing since the Beavis case superseded it (and it did).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DiegoFuego
    • By DiegoFuego 2nd Nov 16, 9:15 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DiegoFuego
    Here are a couple of examples.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5528717&highlight=bargepole+court &page=2#

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5484104&highlight=bargepole+court #topofpage


    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 16, 9:35 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 52,421 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A MIL case is completely different, don't even read those, there are more grounds there to argue that MIL have no standing. Not the same in a defence v a PPC.

    And the other one was from 4 months ago and the OP got very few comments before putting the defence in. As I said in reply #51, a defence from a few months ago is too old to be reading and there are newer examples:

    Posters called steady.alone (today) and bigsej (this month) both have threads which show a recent defence written out, albeit not a UKPC one but you will be able to see arguments that have nothing about 'loss' or GPEOL or old cases like PE v Gardam, or the Ibbotson case, or the UTCCRs. It looks as though this is based upon one from a few months back = too old.
    Only the other day, this week, I edited the NEWBIES sticky thread and updated the linked defences shown under 'Small Claim?' so some of those there now are worth a read. There's a lovely long one written by someone on pepipoo, Janeo, which has lots of defence points and is well written. Linked in the NEWBIES thread as a very recent example.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

3,443Posts Today

6,577Users online

Martin's Twitter