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
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 19th Oct 17, 8:30 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Bucko78
    Court papers SIP/ Gladstone “failure to display”
    • #1
    • 19th Oct 17, 8:30 PM
    Court papers SIP/ Gladstone “failure to display” 19th Oct 17 at 8:30 PM
    Hello all,

    Just wondering if I could ask for some advice?

    Some time back we got a Pcn of SIP, for failure to display. Had the usual letters escalating to action.

    The ticket was purchased and displayed on the plastic cowling on the steering column, however these corrupted ticket inspectors have taken protracted angled photos to substantiate the claim there was no ticket there.

    We have photos which clearly show the ticket from the drivers door being completely visible, and legible.

    We have received the notice ‘Claim form’ today for court.. I’m so angry that I want to go all the way with this.. however just wanted to know if you lose do you automatically get a CCJ?

    What would you do now to formulate a defence, would you go solicitor or do it yourself.

    If anyone can offer further guidance I’d be extremely grateful..


    Thanks
Page 3
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Nov 17, 10:12 AM
    • 2,158 Posts
    • 6,218 Thanks
    bargepole
    A parking company, who suffered no loss, (unlike PE in the Beavis case), want you too pay £100 for an alleged breach of contract..
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Have you ever read the Beavis Judgment? It clearly states that PE suffered no loss whatsoever.

    That was why the penalties rule was engaged, and then became disengaged because of the 'legitimate interest' argument.

    You are clearly entitled to express your own opinions, but you shouldn't be posting on OP's threads with advice or suggestions which fly in the face of provable facts.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 29. Lost 9.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Nov 17, 10:19 AM
    • 2,158 Posts
    • 6,218 Thanks
    bargepole
    Or, you could ditch all that legal stuff, which I am sure gets up a lot of judges' noses, and simply tell the truth. You bought a ticket, displayed it as agreed, the right way up, you did not bilk, you did not obstruct fire engines and ambulances, and that is that.

    Parking companies have been exposed time and time again as dishonest, they consistently take to court undeserving cases, and deliberately try to trap people.

    NCP have been landed with huge costs, as has OPC, UKPC has been exposed in national newspaper as issuing fraudulent tickets, and many use unlawful methods of obtaining evidence, (Ibbotson).

    I am sure that, if you run Jonersh's defence, you will prevail, but this is a piddling parking fine from a smallish company. Are there not too many eggs in this particular pudding?
    Originally posted by The Deep
    More inappropriate advice, I'm afraid. What happened to other PPCs has no relevance to this case.

    Yes, some Judges may simply dismiss the claim based simply on the fact that the OP bought a ticket, and that's the end of the matter.

    But there are many others who will say, well the T&Cs say it must be clearly displayed, and it wasn't, so you breached the terms and are liable to pay the charge.

    The Defence should always start with the strongest and most obvious argument, but you need other arguments to back that up if you don't succeed on the first point.

    The object is to try to avoid falling foul of DJ Bingo.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 29. Lost 9.
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 11th Nov 17, 10:33 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    Thanks for the response.

    I’ve always believed that keeping things simple is the way to go.
    Nobody goes out and parks up, to deliberately cause a breach or to antagonise the parking companies.

    we did as the requirements set out, like you say .. no one got hurt, no one lost, and nobody suffered by what (we) did..well not me personally, anyway..

    I would have liked to have formed a defence whereby a Leyman could read it and grasp a firm understanding of the manipulation being caused, but like anything in this life it may go the other way if the person reviewing it has nothing firm to hang their judgement upon.
    For that reason it’s only human nature to ‘gold plate’ everything to make sure there are no avenues which could leave somebody exposed.

    I work in construction management and we fill in form after, form which cover the same thing (just to make sure we’ve done everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to ensure we’ve covered all bases..)
    As you can imagine I spend 30 to 40% of my time doing health and safety.. and not the profession I should be doing.. what a world we live in..
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 11th Nov 17, 1:14 PM
    • 736 Posts
    • 1,370 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I am sure that, if you run Jonersh's defence, you will prevail, but this is a piddling parking fine from a smallish company. Are there not too many eggs in this particular pudding?
    So you like custard and I like creme brulee. So long as your pudding gives the claimant their just dessert, what gives?

    FWIW i've taken out much more than I've added. The alternate defence belongs to the o/p. You will note that I have queried whether it is applicable. After all, the signs were clear enough that a ticket was purchased.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Nov 17, 1:30 PM
    • 7,415 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    The Deep
    More inappropriate advice,

    Mr C, I have framed on the wall of my office a Royal Commission, signed by Her Majesty in which she refers to me as "trusty and well beloved and in whom we are well pleased".

    I think that your recent achievement at the MK degree factory may have gone to you head.
    Last edited by The Deep; 11-11-2017 at 1:33 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Nov 17, 2:22 PM
    • 2,158 Posts
    • 6,218 Thanks
    bargepole
    More inappropriate advice,

    Mr C, I have framed on the wall of my office a Royal Commission, signed by Her Majesty in which she refers to me as "trusty and well beloved and in whom we are well pleased".

    I think that your recent achievement at the MK degree factory may have gone to you head.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I was under the impression that a Royal Commission is a body set up to conduct an enquiry into some matter of national importance.

    But whatever is on your office wall, Her Majesty is, no doubt, pleased with your efforts at the F&CO some years ago, dealing with all those Jonny Foreigners who start east of Calais.

    She may be less pleased if she knew that users of her Courts & Tribunals Service were being inappropriately advised on the conduct of their cases, and might even send a Royal Equerry round to have a quiet word.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 29. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Nov 17, 2:26 PM
    • 7,415 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    The Deep
    I shall prepare the cucumber sandwiches.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Nov 17, 2:34 PM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Have you sorted out the numbering, Bucko78?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Nov 17, 2:43 PM
    • 7,415 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    The Deep
    You are clearly entitled to express your own opinions, but you shouldn't be posting on OP's threads with advice or suggestions which fly in the face of provable facts.

    Mr C, it was neither. It was a hypothetical question, an expression of moral outrage.
    Last edited by The Deep; 11-11-2017 at 2:49 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 12th Nov 17, 12:40 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    Hi Johnersh (and all), think I’ve covered the revised articles and added omitted the loose wording.. please find my final draft below..

    Thankyou all an advance..


    DEFENCE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity, they inform the defendant of the following:
    The driver of registration ********* incurred parking charges on the date********* for breaching the terms of parking on the land at **************
    The defendant was the driver/ keeper and the Claimant claims £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable together with interest of £5.69 pursuant to S69 of County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing judgement at 0.04 per day.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged offence.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof
    5.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort

    6. The Defendant is alleged to have breached the terms and conditions by failing to display a valid ticket, this is denied; the allegations are both untrue and unfounded. The Defendant avers that a valid ticket was purchased and that it was displayed in accordance with the directions stated on the ticket as follows:
    6.1 The Defendant purchased a ticket at XX Hours for a period of YY hours; and
    6.2 The purchased ticket was displayed on the dashboard/fascia area of the vehicle directly in front of the instrument binnacle on the driver's side;
    6.3 The purchased ticket would have been visible to a responsible body of car park operatives. It is denied that the ticket was not displayed in a manner in which it could both be seen and checked. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the ticket was not displayed.
    6.4 Such photographs as are relied upon by the Claimant are inaccurate and misleading being cropped or taken from such an angle so as to display only areas of the vehicle from where the parking ticket purchased was not visible.
    6.5 The parking operative is required to provide written and oral testimony before the Court. The Defendant will produce to the Court photographic evidence of the ticket in situ, taken contemporaneously in due course, together with his own witness evidence.


    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

    7. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
    You may wish to check these "boilerplate" allegations re signage do apply here

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    Conflict of interest
    10. The Defendant has not appealed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) to appeal his ticket prior to the issue of proceedings. The reasons for not doing so are as follows:
    10.1. The IAS is an organisation funded by the International Parking Community (the IPC). The IPC is a member funded trade organisation of parking companies.

    10.2. Both the IAS and IPC are owned by or are sub-divisions of United Trade and Industry Limited. The directors of that business at the date of the parking ticket being issued were John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Hurley

    10.3. It is noted that the solicitors now instructed in this matter on behalf of the Claimant are Gladstones Solicitors Limited. The directors of that company at the date of the parking ticket being issued were John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Hurley

    In all the circumstances, it is averred that once a ticket had been issued in this matter, there was no course of appeal that was truly independent or impartial. The Defendant has not been offered proper recourse to alternative dispute resolution, notwithstanding the existence of the IAS, which appears to be a veneer. That the law firm instructed to proceed with the claim are directly linked with the body issuing tickets via a trade association was and is a significant concern. The Defendant had no confidence that any appeal, if lodged with the IAS, would have been properly considered.[/B]

    11. The Claimant's representative has been provided with a copy of the valid ticket. The Claimant is aware that there has been no financial loss. It is denied that the Claimant has sustained any loss or that there was any breach of terms that may entitle them to damages under contractual provisions or otherwise.




    LOSS CLAIMED, COSTS AND INTEREST
    12. If, which is denied, the Claimant was entitled to issue a parking ticket for which a charge is payable, It is denied that the amounts claimed by the Claimant are permitted by the terms of the contract or in law.
    12.1 The signage refers to the amount of the charge being X. If the costs of enforcement are notional or predictable, these should appear on the sign if they are to be capable of agreement.
    12.2 Legal costs are not recoverable in the small claims track pursuant to Part 27 CPR other than HMCTS costs
    12.3 The correspondence from agents appointed by the Claimant appears to have unilaterally and arbitrarily applied additional charges without explanation or entitlement. These are not actual costs or costs incurred by the Claimant. It is averred that debt recovery agencies work on a no win/no fee basis and that no enhanced costs have been incurred at all. The Claim for such costs is an abuse of process and a breach of the indemnity principle.

    13. For the reasons aforesaid, it is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Personally I wouldn't quote their POC, no need, so I would have #1 and #2 like this:

    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. They fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol For Debt Claims, 1st October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    and I would amend #5 just so it reads better:

    5. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged offence.

    5.1. It is denied that there was any ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort and the Claimant is put to strict proof.


    And at your point #11 they will shout ''Beavis case! Doesn't matter if there's no loss!'' so I would try to pre-empt that:

    11. The Claimant's representative has been provided with a copy of the valid ticket. The Claimant is aware that there has been no financial loss. It is denied that the Claimant has sustained any loss or that there was any breach of terms that may entitle them to damages under contractual provisions or otherwise.

    11.1 This parking charge is unjustified and unconscionable, when compared against Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which were held in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) to be a relevant consideration in every case where the penalty rule was potentially engaged. The Beavis case did not remove that test (indeed the Supreme Court refused such a suggestion) and the £85 charge was only saved from being struck down as a penalty by a specific 'legitimate interest' argument 'taking into account use of this particular car park and clear wording of the notices'. Parking charge cases are very fact-specific and what may have been recoverable on one set of facts is not recoverable on another.

    11.2 This case can be easily distinguished from the Beavis case, where the Judges held the facts were 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes, such as where an hourly fee rate in a paid car park is easily quantified. It was further confirmed in the Supreme Court that inflated parking charges cannot be levied as fines merely to punish drivers.

    11.3 (The Beavis case) Lord Mance at 152: ''What is necessary in each case is to consider, first, whether any (and if so what) legitimate business interest is served and protected by the clause, and, second, whether, assuming such an interest to exist, the provision made for the interest is nevertheless in the circumstances extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable.''

    11.4 (The Beavis case) Lord Mance at 191: ''ParkingEye argued that Parliament has, by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, effectively recognised the legitimacy of a scheme such as theirs, in a way precluding or at least militating against any application of the penalty doctrine. The judge and Court of Appeal (para 28) also found some support in this Act for the view that charges of this kind are not to be regarded as unenforceable. In my view, that is a misreading of the Act. The Act merely “makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle” (section 56), in circumstances “where (a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and (b) those charges have not been paid in full” (Schedule 4, paragraph 1). The reference to a relevant “obligation” does not exclude the penalty doctrine. On the contrary, if a charge stipulated contractually is a penalty, there will be no obligation''... {adding at 193}: ''The penalty doctrine is therefore potentially applicable to the present scheme.''
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 13th Nov 17, 8:38 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    In the post above, by coupon mad, could I kindly ask why the Beavis case could be referred to (where I mention about no loss being suffered.)

    The Beavis case was won based upon the courts deciding that a charge was enforceable and fair:
    -where the company solely relied upon a revenue by misuse of the car park their primary function was to manage it and prevent abuse of the facility (not to collect or be a beneficiary of hourly tariffs)

    -It had to be commercially viable for the ppc with a weighted charge to catch those breaching the parking terms and conditions..the £85 was justified based on the ppc having no other form of revenue.

    So, where a car park operates on a tariff based system they are not solely reliant on managing the deviant drivers who say: park over two bays or don’t pay.
    The tariff charged for that service generates income to allow the car park to be viable as a business.
    If the tariff is paid they are a beneficiary of this business, so to effectively run this business they are duty bound to monitor, service the car park anyway to keep it functional..ie, when they collect the money maintain the machine..etc
    So what I’m saying is my terminology of loss is different to that of the Beavis case.. I paid what was required to authenticate my presence there.

    maybe someone could explain.?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Nov 17, 9:07 PM
    • 736 Posts
    • 1,370 Thanks
    Johnersh
    1. You assume that the PPC as supposed to the landowner keeps the ticket fees - that's a big assumption
    2. Beavis is authority for the proposition that keeping the turnover of cars using a parking facility has a commercial value to the landowner

    Beavis is NOT authority for all parking cases.

    In Beavis terms were deemed agreed to and breached by the overstay. Your primary case is that the terms were agreed to, but not breached because a ticket was both purchased and displayed.
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 13th Nov 17, 9:30 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    Thanks John,

    So to pre-empt the claimant shouting Beavis case..!

    Should I extract that from the script? Also would they be relying on this to reaffirm their claim.?
    Would there be any line which could be added to counter that statement other than what you have suggested above..

    Thankyou kindly in advance.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Nov 17, 10:29 PM
    • 736 Posts
    • 1,370 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I'd lose most of 11, yes. Particulars can reference case law, but dont really need lengthy reciting of the judgments referred to - you can do that at trial (if you are confident enough).

    It also shrouds the core argument. The no loss point here can be distinguished from beavis because here there is none (no overstay, correctly parked and ticketed). In beavis the loss was there - just not a direct pecuniary one.

    Hence the value in having a parking scheme for a shop so that their customers can more often than not get a space.

    ..or so your argument goes.......
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Nov 17, 1:13 PM
    • 1,159 Posts
    • 1,191 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    In a free scheme, the incentive is turnover - they dont want people staing all day, they want more people through doors
    In a pay and display, as long as you pay you can stay there as long as they allow. If this limit isnt exceeded there is no justificaiton for any penalty.
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 4th Dec 17, 6:56 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    After submitting my defence and a counterclaim notification.. we have received this back today from the solicitors.. (see attached below..)

    I don’t understand why they are saying we don’t have to attend court, and how a judgement can be made by court papers only.. are they expecting us not to rightfully defend out corner?

    Can they say all this.. ? they have submitted this nonesense to counter the fact we need paying back should these be found to have unlawfully dragged us to court for no wrong doing..
    A counter claim of a day’s wages parking, fuel costs, and the £25 court fee was entered.. se below how they have responded..

    Any further guidance would be great.. cheers

    CLAIM NO: **********


    SIP PARKING LTD
    (CLAIMANT)

    -AND-

    ********************

    (DEFENDANT)

    __________________________

    DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
    __________________________


    1. The Claimant requests that the Counterclaim be struck out as it is entirely without merit pursuant to 3.4(2)(a) Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

    2. The Defendant has made the Counterclaim against the Claimant in the sum of £*** for loss earnings, car parking, fuel and Court fees.

    3. The Defendant avers that they will require a full day off from their employment to attend Court. The Claimant rejects that a full day is required to attend the hearing. My instructed Solicitor, when filing the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the claim requests that the matter is heard on the papers alone, therefore neither party is required to attend. It would be at the Defendant’s request to have the matter heard at an oral hearing in front of the Judge, therefore the Claimant should not be liable to pay the alleged loss of earnings. Further, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence of how much they are to lose in lost income.

    4. The Defendant considers their parking and fuel should be paid for by the Claimant, which is rejected. When filing their Direction’s Questionnaire, the Defendant can request at which Court the matter is heard at, therefore the travel and parking costs should be minimal and in any event, as reiterated in the above paragraph it would be at the Defendant’s request to attend Court.

    5. The Claimant should not bear the costs of the Defendant making the counterclaim and having to pay the applicable Court fee as this is made at the Defendant’s own choosing.


    6. Notwithstanding the above, this element of the counterclaim is clearly nothing more than a claim for costs that should be dealt with after liability has been determined. Notwithstanding this, there is no jurisdiction for the Defendant to recover the costs in the sum claimed or indeed at all.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH

    The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Defence to Counterclaim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.



    Gladstones Solicitors, on behalf of the Claimant
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Dec 17, 8:05 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    2. The Defendant has made the Counterclaim against the Claimant in the sum of £*** for loss earnings, car parking, fuel and Court fees.
    In the absence of anyone with court experience coming through this evening, I just thought I’d flag up that the above list of items for a ‘counterclaim’ are almost entirely appropriate to a Costs Schedule, not a counterclaim.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Bucko78
    • By Bucko78 4th Dec 17, 8:30 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Bucko78
    Could you elaborate I have no idea what the difference is..we paid £25 to have the right to claim back our losses for a day in court.
    It wasn’t based on hourly rates, but two people in a car travelling to an (unspecified court at the time with reasonable costings)

    My thoughts on the above were that, I am innocent till proven guilty.. if I am not guilty and I have been tried at random (phishing) like most legitimate people, ( into be provoked into paying up) then the counterclaim was to recoupe any costs which I attribute to them taking me to court.

    I say this under the pretences that they are so !!!! sure of themselves winning that they don’t want the barrel of the gun turning on them and costing them in the long run. ( Hence they are not so sure are they..if they defend it prematurely)
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Dec 17, 8:40 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,670 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In the context of private parking issues, counterclaims are more appropriate to harassment (quite a high threshold to reach) and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

    A costs schedule covers things like travel/parking costs to attend court, litigant in person costs at £19ph for all the research and preparation work for the case, up to £95 for time off from work for the defendant only, costs of stationery, postage, phone calls and the like.

    I don’t think what you’re ‘counterclaiming’ for is much outside the costs schedule items I’ve listed above. What happens now in relation to your counterclaim fee, I’m not certain - if either see this, maybe LOC123 or Johnersh (both lawyers) will comment.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
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

228Posts Today

1,538Users online

Martin's Twitter