Help with PE County Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

When jangofett on pepipoo lost against UKCPS in small claims this year (heads up to avoid St Helens court!!) the judge railroaded his defence but still only awarded the parking charge, the DVLA £2.50 fee and the court fee:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76790&st=80 (see post #95)

I realise that one wasn't PE - but shows you that even a stroppy narrow-minded judge doesn't normally go mad with any massive award to a PPC.

In Parking Eye v Smith, although PE won in 2011, the judge only awarded the £15 the person should have paid in a P&D machine, plus £95 nominal costs:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3648411

The heading on that thread suggests PE lost - but in fact they 'won' but lost a fortune in Solicitors' fees!

spacey2012

They are ways of making it cost them thousands, many thousands all for £165.

Traindriver4

spacey2012 wrote: »

They are ways of making it cost them thousands, many thousands all for £165.

Can you please be specific. Court hearing fees are £25, which may be added on top.

James_N

Traindriver4 wrote: »

Hello everyone. When PE goes to court claiming £165 (comprising £100 charge, £50 solicitors, £15 extras), if you lost at the hearing, is this the amount you will be asked to pay in total or could this figure increase? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks.

The costs in a small claims court are deliberately "low" in comparison with other civil courts. The sum that a claimant makes is very unlikely to be exceeded by a judge making the award if the claimant wins. Court fees may be added - as in the fee the claimant makes for bringing the claim - and you can look these up. The claimant cannot claim solicitors fees, only for their proven loss and calculated interest on that loss.

In some circumstances, the claimant's behaviour pre-court is taken into account AND the judge calculates for him or herself the reasonable loss. This can result in a LOWER award (as in "your claim is not worth what you say - you have only lost £15 (say)) AND the claimant may be asked to bear the cost of the court fees themselves - because they did not (for instance) undertake reasonable opportunities for resolution of dispute pre-court

In short - your exposure in a small claims court is limited. I'd even go so far as to say the the small claims procedure - as in a plumber getting a reluctant customer to pay, is not really designed for systematic use by PPCs in the way they are trying AND that POPLA was brought in on THEIR promise that court action would be reduced.

hoohoo

Take a look at the parkingeye web site http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/News which shows that most awards are for £200, which is probably the initial claim of £100, the filing fee of £15, the fake solicitor fee of £50, the £25 hearing fee and £10 travel.

ParkingEye always try to claim their £200-£300 LPC Law solicitor fee on the grounds that the defendant acted unreasonably by ignoring one or two letters and have been awarded more where the defence had no chance of success (one person did not realise I-am-not-the-driver does not work any more). But usually the Judge laughs at them and throws this out.

It has not yet been brought up in court (to my knowledge) that the fake solicitor fee of £50 has not actually been incurred, and rakes in £1,300,000 per year which cannot possibly be [Text removed by MSE Forum Team] cost to the business.

It has not yet been brought up in court (to my knowledge) that the travel costs claimed by the LPC Law solicitor should not be allowed because it explicitly states in their brochure http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/pdfs/lpc_brochure.pdf that the client will not be charged travel costs. These costs are therefore already built into their fee, and allowing them is therefore charging twice for the same amount.

Traindriver4

Reading through these threads, I get the feeling that if your identity is revealed or becomes apparent, then your case against the PPC becomes weaker. Why? It doesn't change the original facts.

Secondly, in a few court hearings (and also when PPC responds to a defence), the PPC have used the fact that the defendants have obtained advice from forums and have almost copied their defence word for word. Again, I cannot understand why is this to the advantage of the PPC?

peter_the_piper

Sometimes people are less than kind to the PPC, even derogatry so in cases like this it can be used to sway the adjudicator/judge. .,In their favourite case Mr T. in fact admitted he deliberately parked knowing he would get tickets, naturally the Judge took a dim view.
All cases are taken as separate and individual advice given, thats why people often say there is not a template to use, except in certain cases at adjudicator (but not county court)
Hope this makes sense, got flu and brain slightly addled.
Anyway, a ppc will say anything to get a victim to cough up, its cheaper than going to court and lass risky.

nigelbb

From case reports that I have read where the PPC produced evidence that the defendant had sought advice on the Internet the judge has usually said something to the effect that the defendant is at liberty to take advice from anywhere. I have also seen cases where the PPC blatantly lie & claim that forums like this one encourage people to flout parking charges and park in disabled bays when not entitled. Again judges don't seem to be swayed by such rubbish.

It's not always a bad thing if the PPC identifies a case as we have seen cases where as the story unfolds on the forum it's clear that the PPC is in for a bloody nose so the case gets withdrawn. The problem is where the motorist is for example arguing on non-compliance with POFA but in a forum post admits to being the driver. As long as postings stick to the facts and there is no evidence of deceit then I don't think that it matters much. The PPC is going to see the full defence soon enough whether it's at POPLA or in court.

bod1467

nigelbb wrote: »

As long as postings stick to the facts and there is no evidence of deceit then I don't think that it matters much. The PPC is going to see the full defence soon enough whether it's at POPLA or in court.

Edited to what I think you meant. (Unless you meant deceit by the PPC).

nigelbb

bod1467 wrote: »

Edited to what I think you meant. (Unless you meant deceit by the PPC).

I have just edited my post to render your strange & pointless:) I thought that accuracy was more important here than preserving the timeline.