PE charge cancelled by principle - court costs 'required'

Custard_Pie

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Ah. That's clearer.

Then if it were me I would defend it.

I don't have the paperwork you have, but if anywhere in PE's paperwork they are claiming to be the agent of Aldi, and they receive instruction from Aldi as landowner/landkeeper, then they should obey.

I would put them at strict proof to produce the exact wording of the contract to the court and in advance to give you and your legal team sufficient time to study the document.

As they have received instruction to cancel from Aldi, then they should do so. The costs incurred are a separate matter and, strictly, these should be reclaimable from Aldi as it is Aldi who have given the instruction and lost the PPC the income stream. I would say that in my submission. In fact, the contract may very well have that as a material clause.

However, as to the parking charge itself, if the judge did not agree with the above, then you need to have your case as well.

But, as I said earlier, you need to balance the financial risk as it's your cash.

There speaks a voice of reason. Surely as agents of Aldi they are there to recover economic loss or it's a penalty? It can't be the former as the charge has been cancelled, so there is no loss.

So, it's a penalty...

Guys_Dad

I would treat the court as top priority. I would ask to have it struck out as suggested, submitting the letter from the landowner as proof.

This may not work, so your court defence would be in 2 stages.

1. Why would the PPC not follow their landowner's instructions.

2. Contract with landowner. You believe that the contract specifies the exact relationship and landowner rights/costs re cancellation. They must submit contract as some PPC contracts have a cancellation charge that the PPC can claim back for costs from the landowner.

3. Then, if that fails, all the usual defence/appeal points.

But be sure you get that in on time or you are up the Clyde without a gas mask.

As far as PE goes, as you say you simply say that you have a letter from the landowner overrulling PE and cancelling the charge. No mention of costs in letter.

If they carry on with action, you demand to see the exact terms of engagement in the contract that specify the rights and obligations of the landowner re cancelling customers' charges.


That's about it.
.

zzzLazyDaisy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I would treat the court as top priority. I would ask to have it struck out as suggested, submitting the letter from the landowner as proof.

This may not work, so your court defence would be in 2 stages.

1. Why would the PPC not follow their landowner's instructions.

2. Contract with landowner. You believe that the contract specifies the exact relationship and landowner rights/costs re cancellation. They must submit contract as some PPC contracts have a cancellation charge that the PPC can claim back for costs from the landowner.

3. Then, if that fails, all the usual defence/appeal points.

.

I agree with this.

First, don't miss the deadline for the defence, or they will apply for summary judgement against you.

I also agree with the £50 point - if you were sick to the back teeth with the whole thing £50 puts you in no worse a place, financially, than if you had paid the original charge. Personally I'd fight them all the way, but I can certainly understand anyone who throws in the towel.

AS for the defence -

The first point is

The claimant has no right of action against the defendant. The claimant acts as agent on behalf of the prinicpal, which is ALDI. By a letter to the defendant dated [.......] (copy attached) the principal confirmed that it has instructed its agent to cancel the charge. In the circumstances the defendant respectfully requests the court to strike out this action on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The defendant further asks the court to consider ordering the claimant to pay the defendants costs of defending this action pursuant to the provisions of CPR 27.14(2)(g)

Further and/or in the alternative:

[deal here with their failure to comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct before starting proceedings, enclose a copy of their letter before action, and ask the court to use its powers under S4.6 (1) of the Practice Direction to stay these proceedings to allow the parties the opportunity to comply with the Pre-action Conduct procedure.

Finally if the court is not minded to grant the defendants request to either strike out or stay these proceedings, the defendant's defence to this action is set out below:

The claimant has shown no legal standing to bring this claim. The landowner is the only entity that can bring a claim concerning the defendant's parking on the landowners land. Accordingly the claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this action. The claimant has consistently refused to produce any documentary evidence of its standing in these court proceedings. Therefore the defendant respectfully requests the court to make an order that the claimant must provide a copy of the contract between the landowner and the claimant authorising the claimant to act as the landowner's agent in these proceedings, and to make the original document available to the court for inspection.

Re 'without prejudice letter' - it cannot be shown to the court in the actual proceedings. However if the claimant wins and the court award them £50 or more, the claimant can rely on that letter in an application for costs on the basis that you could have chosen to end the action there and didn't do, so you should have to pay their costs of continuing with the court case.

Given their blatant disregard of court procedure it is to be hoped that the court would send them away with a flea in their ear. But all we can do is wait and see.

Re asking the court to make an order for disclosure of documents, in relation to the contract. Once you have got the defence off and have time to breath, I suggest that you make a formal request to the court for information and documents. You need to keep it short as otherwise the court won't agree. But it is worth making a list of the documents that are in the claimant's possession that you need to see in order to prepare your case.

Same with information - for example depending on what the claim says, you may wish the claimant to confirm that this is a breach of contract action and if so to provide details of the genuine pre-estimate of loss showing how this has been calculated. If it is not a boc action, then the defendant should state clearly the basis on which this claim is founded and show details of how the alleged loss has been calculated.

Hope this helps

Dx

betteroff

Hi Daisy and many thanks for your reply
Quick question before the post office closes - do I need to bother sending a reply to PE at all or just correspond via the court?

zzzLazyDaisy

via the court

jkdd77

The courts are not meant to be for "fishing expeditions"; it's Parking Eye's responsibility to be sure that they sue the right defendant, have proper authority from the landowner to sue, and that the alleged debt actually exists. Having failed to meet these conditions, the costs Parking Eye incurred on their "fishing expedition" are entirely their own fault.

If the claim for the substantive invoice had failed (as it would have done), then Parking Eye presumably wouldn't have received a penny of their costs, but instead would have had to pay the defendant's costs, so why should the cancellation of the claim make any difference to the principle?

Furthermore, Parking Eye are acting as agents of Aldi; if Aldi's actions in cancelling the invoice have caused them loss that is solely a matter between Aldi and Parking Eye, and is not the defendant's fault or responsibility in any way.

Coupon-mad

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

You may be wise to pay it

Astonished you said that. The £50 is a 'without prejudice' letter and no way would I pay it when clearly the court claim seems to be shot to pieces by Aldi.

zzzLazyDaisy has the best advice above (of course the defendant has more points to their defence than shown and should rebut every point made by PE in their full defence if it goes that far).

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Astonished you said that. The £50 is a 'without prejudice' letter and no way would I pay it when clearly the court claim seems to be shot to pieces by Aldi.

zzzLazyDaisy has the best advice above (of course the defendant has more points to appeal than shown and should rebut every point made by PE in their full defence if it goes that far.

Yes you were right , i shouldnt have advised that as i hadnt really read the thread properly

I was rather annoyed with a lot of people i have been helping with PE , they wouldnt get of their ar*e and do anything for them sevles.

One i just told to pay it if they couldnt wipe their own ********

betteroff

Well it's just as well I followed zzzLazyDaisy's advice then!
Defence sent with respective copies of documentation and had acknowledgement of receipt from the court.

So, waiting now to see what they do!

betteroff

So, the Notice to Proceed has arrived along with their defence, many pages long, as we know.

1) They say that in this car park, Aldi are not the landholder and so have no authority whatsoever so cancel the parking charge!!!!!!!!!

2) They say the 'landholder' is X in the defence and then have a witness statement from Y saying they are the 'landowner' - how many can actually be the landowner? Really got to see this contract(s)

But get this, they say that they received no instruction to cancel the parking ticket but even if they had, as it wasn't from the landholder it wouldn't be legitimate!!

Curious after receiving 'no instruction' from Aldi, they write the very next day and try to settle - conveniently marking it WP save as to costs?

Could do with finding out if other people have had their tickets cancelled on this site by Aldi as genuine shoppers and how this is different

The plot thickens!