Court papers parking eye ** help**

Orrin

Semolina_pudding wrote: »

My fear is PE stance that they have contacted me on 4 occasions (if you include today's letter & and those from Debt Recovery I think they will find it to be 8,and although I have ignored them all I HAVE KEPT THEM ALL ...is that they have offered me every opportunity to appeal in various forms,but I chose to ignore....WILL THAT GO IN THEIR FAVOUR ?????

It is possible for the court to order additional costs to be paid by a party who has "behaved unreasonably". Whether ignoring PE's correspondence qualifies as unreasonable behavior I couldn't say. I doubt it though.

Semolina_pudding

The Court papers already state that £85 amount claimed
£15 court fee
£50 solicitors costs
Total £150
From what I have read PE would have to pay £35 no later than 14 days before court date,if not it is likely that the Judge would strike out the case,yet in their letter today they claim cost of issuing court proc £25 is this in addition to the £35?.
In short if this Parking Charge is unenforceable,can they claim costs(I would like to see this in their contract with the landholder,and I have requested sight of this this in my defence statement )
One more thing, should I contact PE or Aldi for a copy of the pivitol contract,are they entitled to provide this or is this where A Norwich Pharmacal order comes into play (see I have been listening )

Orrin

£25 is the initial claim fee. £35 would be the hearing fee but they can get that back if the case is settled and as you say they may not have actually paid it yet anyway.

I'm not sure about the £50 solicitor's costs as PE have their own in house counsel although perhaps that's what they pay LPC.

If the charge was groundless PE shouldn't have wasted their time and money trying to collect it in the first place.

zzzLazyDaisy

'Unreasonable behaviour' in relation to costs refers to the parties conduct during the court proceedings.

Semolina, have you filed your acknowledgement of service yet?

As far as the defence goes, you should ensure that one of your first points is that the landowner has already notified you that the charge has been cancelled but the Claimant (who is their agent) refuses to withdraw the proceedings unless and until you agree to pay a fee of £50.

Then go straight in with the point that the Claimant is not the landowner, and therefore has no independent right to levy a parking fee, and has no legal standing to issue proceedings unless there is a contract in existence between the Claimant and the Landowner giving the Claimant authority to act as the landowner's agent. Without a copy of that contract it is impossible to tell what the Claimant's status is with regard to these proceedings, and ask the court to make an order that the Claimant provide the court with a copy of the contract and send a copy to you.

Then deal with the issue of the Claimant failing to comply with the Practice Direction on pre-action Conduct (as set out in my earlier post). One of the directions is that the parties must consider appropriate ADR - that's POPLA, so make it clear that you are happy to agree to have this matter referred to POPLA, this being the appropriate form of ADR set up by the British Parking Association, of which the Claimant is a member.

Deal with their other failures to comply with the PD and ask that the proceedings be stayed to allow the parties to comply with the PD.

Then set out your detailed indepth defence to the parking charge, with side headings and bullet points.

EDITED TO ADD: if the court agrees that the parking charge is unenforceable, then the Claimant loses the case and cannot claim costs.

Semolina_pudding

ADR does that mean Alternative dispute resolution ? Would I be able to turn down mediation or is this only on offer prior to Court proceeding?
I was all set to respond on line this morning,then the post came,so dithered a little & thus wanted a little more advice. I have until 27th never fear it will be done,does the on line facility allow for comments? re the cancellation etc.
zzzLazyDaisy This is my intended comments before launching into my defence.... (dates etc remove for purpose of this post)
(CLAIMANT) PARKING EYE v (DEFENDANT) S.PUDDING
PNC00000000 ISSUED ??/12/2012
**IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION**
AS A RESULT OF A VISIT TO THE ALDI STORE IN QUESTION (?/07/2013) I WAS ASKED TO PRESENT COPIES OF RECEIPTS/PROOF OF PURCHASE FOR THE DATE OF THE PCN.
I DID THIS, AND ON THE ?/07/2013 RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM ALDI AREA HEAD OFFICE (MIDDLETON, MANCHESTER), TO CONFIRM THAT THE PCN HAD BEEN CANCELLED WITH PE, AND A LETTER WOULD BE SENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS.THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED ?/07/2013.
FURTHER TO THE ABOVE, I ALSO RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM ALDI HO, STATING- ALTHOUGH THE ‘FINE’ WOULD BE QUASHED, IT WAS WITH A PROVISO THAT I PAID £50 TO PE TO COVER THEIR COSTS INCURRED.THIS IS NOW BACKED UP BY LETTER RECEIVED FROM PE ?/07/2013, GIVING A BREAKDOWN AS FOLLOWS;
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
Cost of issuing Court proceedings: £25
Cost of obtaining RK details from DVLA £2.50
Postage:£2.50
Admin costs: £20
'Should this matter be settled in court, PE firmly believes that all of the associated costs will be found to be owe by you, especially as PE gave you ample opportunity to appeal this Parking Charge’
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOW NO CASE TO ANSWER TO, I WAS ADVISED THAT PE WOULD STILL NEED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE FROM THE COURT SYSTEM.
WITH THIS IN MIND, I SUGGEST THAT THE CASE BE STRUCK OUT, AS THE STORE (landholder) IS NOT CLAIMING A LOSS, AND PE APPEAR TO BE DEMANDING MONEY TO CLOSE A NON EXISTENT/CLOSED CASE.

zzzLazyDaisy

You cannot produce a without prejudice letter to the court, and you cannot tell the court what it contains. This is because it is an offer to settle, and not an acceptance that the charge was wrong in the first place.

So the whole thing about them offering to cancel the charge is a red herring, if it was made 'without prejudice'

Semolina_pudding

Sorry I am bit confused,are you saying I can't tell the court that PE have written to me asking for me to cover their costs in order for them to not take the case further,it appears like common sense to me,as per your post'
As far as the defence goes, you should ensure that one of your first points is that the landowner has already notified you that the charge has been cancelled but the Claimant (who is their agent) refuses to withdraw the proceedings unless and until you agree to pay a fee of £50.....
I thought that's what I have done,or is it the fact I have quote part of the letter OR is it the fact they have used WITHOUT PREJUDICE in their letter (should I try and attach the letter to my post,so you can read the entire contents?)

zzzLazyDaisy

Yes. I wrote that when you said that they had cancelled the charge.

That was before you said that this was part of a 'without prejudice' offer.

If the 'cancellation' is in the form of a 'without prejudice letter' it is not in fact a cancellation, it is an offer to negotiate a settlement based on the terms set out in that letter. You are not allowed to bring without prejudice correspondence to the attention of the court. If you try to, the judge will refuse to listen to you as the court cannot take it into consideration.

I appreciate this is confusing for you, but the point about WoP correspondence is that you either agree to settle the dispute on the basis set out in the letter, or you don't. If you don't, then the letter ceases to have any importance to the question of who is right and who is wrong. It is not an admission that the charge was wrong, it is not even an offer to cancel the charge it is an offer to stop the court proceedings if you agree to the terms set out in the letter.

I do strongly suggest that you go and see the CAB and/or get some proper advice, as it is very clear that you do not understand the court process. That is not a criticism, but you will find it very difficult to conduct these proceedings if you do not understand what is happening.

welshnational

Have just read over on Pepipoo that the defence provided on the forums has failed in court today.

welshnational

this is the key part
'I lost. Parking Eye won.

Every point raised by myself (which included EVERY loophole, law and non-compliance ever raised on Pepipoo) was summarily dismissed by the judge.

PE now have a license to print money. The mere act and cost of issuing a PCN is enough to justify the charge.'