I have received a Parking Eye County Court Claim Form

Lamo

They got the right name from DVLA, but omitted the last name in all their correspondences. The County Court claim form has the right name. So, technically, the Claim form and PCN were not issued to the same person.

Coupon-mad

You can mention it - but there so much more to a proper defence. More important about the 'LBA' would be non-compliance with the Practice Direction which was the case with all PE LBAs (they then changed to LBCCC letters). See the LBCCC fight-back thread near the top of the forum to expose the flaws with the old 'LBA' version. But see other court case threads to see how to put a defence together; it is a matter of going back, say a dozen pages and clicking on every thread title about Northampton/Court claims, any PE court cases, and reading the advice & learning from people's defence wordings shown.

Lamo

I am finally making some headway with PE. I have received a letter asking meto reimburse them the “associated costs” of issuing the County Court claim dueto my earlier “failure to provide evidence” that would have enabled resolutionof the case without costs to either party. I am required to pay this within 7days or the claim against me will remain. The cost has been broken down asfollows:

Cost of issuing court proceedings: £15
Cost of obtaining the Registered Keeper Details from the DVLA: £2.50
Postage: £2.50
Admin costs: £30
TOTAL: £50

I intend to contest this as I have incurred costs myself due to theirfailure to properly consider my appeal and the reasons I had advanced for myinability to provide a shopping receipt.

I would appreciate any advice in respect of how I can fight this demand.

Meanwhile, the county court has acknowledged receipt of my defence which hasbeen forwarded to PE. They have 28 days to contact the court, asking to proceedwith the case or the “claim will be stayed”.

Stroma

Have they been told to cancel the claim, then they are trying it on with you on these costs ?

Coupon-mad

I would appreciate any advice in respect of how I can fight this demand.

That one isn't a demand. It's a last-gasp desperate attempt to squeeze £50 out of a case that's going nowhere and isn't part of the court claim (hence the 'without prejudice' caveat; it's an 'offer' but you do not have to accept it at all, most people don't!).

It's a game of bluff, discussed here but in fact seen on LOTS of threads:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85063

Meanwhile you MUST still submit your defence, even if just a short denial of liability 'holding defence' as discussed on lots of pepipoo threads. If you miss the defence deadline it will be game over for you even if a retailer and/or PE have indicated they 'might' cancel it. Have a read of all the PE Northampton/court MCOL thread titles you see there going back at least half a dozen pages on that forum and you'll learn all you need to know, IMHO.


HTH

4consumerrights

Lamo wrote: »

I am finally making some headway with PE. I have received a letter asking meto reimburse them the “associated costs” of issuing the County Court claim dueto my earlier “failure to provide evidence” that would have enabled resolutionof the case without costs to either party. I am required to pay this within 7days or the claim against me will remain. The cost has been broken down asfollows:

Cost of issuing court proceedings: £15 - possibly tax deductible/or partially (see below)
Cost of obtaining the Registered Keeper Details from the DVLA: £2.50 - tax deductible as part of their membership of ATA/BPA status
Postage: £2.50 - definitely tax deductible
Admin costs: £30 - Which are what: wages - normal business expenses -cannot be claimed.
consumables - (paper/printing etc) tax deductlble
TOTAL: £50

I intend to contest this as I have incurred costs myself due to theirfailure to properly consider my appeal and the reasons I had advanced for myinability to provide a shopping receipt.

I would appreciate any advice in respect of how I can fight this demand.

Meanwhile, the county court has acknowledged receipt of my defence which hasbeen forwarded to PE. They have 28 days to contact the court, asking to proceedwith the case or the “claim will be stayed”.

The principal (landowner) have already instructed Parking Eye to cancel this charge twice and the OP has proof of this instuction.

Parking Eye are really trying it on here. I am pretty sure that most of those expenses they are listing are tax deductible in the course of operating their business (I think they may even be able to claim back the cost of issuing court papers - or a portion of this amount in the course of their business for chasing debts - although this is a very complicated area of what is and what is not allowed)

Write back to them with this information and inform them that you are considering sending their letter to HMRC to check if Parking Eye are committing tax fraud by claiming tax deductible expenses in effect twice.

There was another thread recently by where parking eye were trying it on making an offer before court relating to a POPLA fee when the principal had cancelled the parking charge - Parking eye later backed down!

Consider sending your own costs to them:

Telephone calls
Letters printing costs, travel to post and postage costs
Research and time obtaining advice.
Administration costs (including time)


There are also plenty of threads on this forum with defence points and links and "Guys Dad's POPLA core points makes good reading to expand defence points - page two highlights the problems with their ANPR systems.

4consumerrights

They got the right name from DVLA, but omitted the last name in all their correspondences. The County Court claim form has the right name. So, technically, the Claim form and PCN were not issued to the same person.

A county court judge may throw out this case on the this technicality.
Court papers MUST be issued in the correct full name. The fact that the PCN and correspondence does not contain surname could be considered as a different person being chased for the original charge - Parking Eye could argue this was just a system error as they applied to the court with correct name - so difficult to say.

Stroma

But is it the principle who has cancelled this ticket? The relevant point was 'one of the retailers' , which suggests that the landowner/principle could be someone else

Lamo

Stroma wrote: »

But is it the principle who has cancelled this ticket? The relevant point was 'one of the retailers' , which suggests that the landowner/principle could be someone else

The REQUEST for cancellation was made by a retailer. As far as I am aware, they are not the Landowner.

Lamo

4consumerrights wrote: »

A county court judge may throw out this case on the this technicality.
Court papers MUST be issued in the correct full name. The fact that the PCN and correspondence does not contain surname could be considered as a different person being chased for the original charge - Parking Eye could argue this was just a system error as they applied to the court with correct name - so difficult to say.

Thanks for this.

My thoughts are that if their claim is based on the technicality of theexistence of a contract as displayed on their terms and conditions, which I amassumed to have read, surely, the PCN must be correctly served on the rightperson. Surely, David William DONALD is not the same person as David WilliamDonald CAMERON! You cannot serve the PCN on the former and bring the court caseagainst the later?