counterclaim clause suggestion from Prankster

4consumerrights

Parking Prankster has suggested the following text to be inserted in all soft appeals to PPC with a view to making it easier to raise a Personal costs notification later.

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013_12_01_archive.html


I agree with Prankster that this is a good idea to include at the start of proceedings when you make your initial soft appeal to the PPC.

Prankster suggests that those who have a POPLA code to write again to the PPC with the option of cancelling before submitting POPLA appeal (however do not miss deadline if no reply) and then to add your letter to the appeal.

Even if your POPLA appeal has been heard and allowed - this does not mean you cannot submit a personal costs notification.

Anyone facing court papers could also consider issuing a counter-claim as these can be heard at the same time - especially viable where breach of the Equality Act occurs.

One case I helped win with a counterclaim at court involved an on-street penalty charge. The vehicle parked on double yellow lines was taken to the impound for allegedly not displaying the blue-badge. (The badge was visible on the floor of the car when collected -photos taken). The penalty charge was appealed and lost and Bristol City Council issued court papers. The defence included that the client suffered rheumatoid arthritis and needed to lever himself out of vehicle and that this had obvioiusly been dislodged and the vehicle had a tax-exempt disabled licence disc. Bristol City council lost the court case and were ordered to pay costs, refund travel to the impound, the impound and towing fees and costs for the slight damage to car (scratched). Happy days:)

esmerobbo

It seems the correct approach as long as the reason you won at POPLA was included in your appeal to the PPC, if for instance you brought GPEOL up at POPLA and won, but never appealed this point with the PPC it would be a defence point by the PPC, simply to say if they appealed on that point then we may have allowed it.

One point in your counterclaim success (well done) I have heard it a lot on here and other sites quoting that the council/PPC should have known it was a disabled car being used by a disabled person because it had Nil/disabled licence disc. Unfortunately that is no proof that someone who has the entitlement to a blue badge or zero licence disc is actually using the car.

I still find it quite astonishing how many people with a blue badge and or nil licence disc, some after many many years don't know the rules governing there use. However that's another matter!;)

spikyone

I agree with esmerobbo - you need something to explain why you will be invoicing them, to give yourself the best possible ammunition in any claim.

Something along the lines of:

My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld.
(Then insert PP's text here)

Initial thoughts are that this is best reserved for the likes of PE, who we know are at least 80-0 down at POPLA on GPEOL.

ezerscrooge

If everyone did this - and got paid out, then it will signal the end for these ripper-offers

The_Slithy_Tove

spikyone wrote: »

I agree with esmerobbo - you need something to explain why you will be invoicing them, to give yourself the best possible ammunition in any claim.

Something along the lines of:
My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld.
(Then insert PP's text here)

Seconded. I think the Prankster's text needs this initial paragraph just to se the scene and give them the reason up front why they should accept your appeal now or lose later.

4consumerrights

I'm sorry to be a bit of a party pooper here but Pranksters suggested text for inclusion was to be added at the end of the initial appeal to the Parking Company - he did not imply that no reasons for appealing would be included!

I believe the intention was to be deliberately open-ended regarding the matter and not apply strict constraints. The main objective here is to encourage the parking company to cancel the charge immediately or face the consequences of a possible counterclaim should they pursue the matter further.

(I am sure that Prankster will comment if he disagrees with this statement).


The previous advice was to just do a soft appeal to the parking company with the objective of getting the POPLA code.

However the way the paragraph reads it could be interpreted that you could only raise a personal cost notification if POPLA won on no GPEOL.
The parking company could just not submit any paperwork at all so the motorist wins by default!

Don't forget there have been POPLA wins on unclear signage and no contract /authority and a two recent cases (including one I helped off forum) with this adjudication:

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

In my opinion a more appropriate wording at the end would be:

'' My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal.

You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld and I invite you to cancel the charge now.

If you decide to continue to pursue this matter and reject this challenge then you are welcome to supply a POPLA code. However you should note that further points including (but not limited to) no contract with landowner and/or driver or authority to pursue parking charges in own name, inadequate signage etc may be raised at POPLA.

Should my appeal be upheld at POPLA for any reason, I reserve the right to claim my expenses from you and my time in challenging this parking charge at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Should you fail to provide any evidence at POPLA, I reserve the right to use this as proof that you have no basis whatsoever for your charges. In addition to claiming for my time I will also be referring your behaviour to the BPA and DVLA with the request that your operations at this car park be terminated until such time as you make changes to comply with their directives."

spikyone

4consumerrights wrote: »

I'm sorry to be a bit of a party pooper here but Pranksters suggested text for inclusion was to be added at the end of the initial appeal to the Parking Company - he did not imply that no reasons for appealing would be included!

I wasn't suggesting that no reasons for appeal would be included - since we know that most PPCs will refuse to accept that you have appealed if you fail to give them a reason.

What I'm saying is that from a legal standpoint, PE et al are perfectly entitled to claim that you owe them money (whether you do or not is irrelevant), and equally entitled to refuse your appeal so that it goes to POPLA. It's difficult to see a small claims court siding with a motorist if their case is only that POPLA have later upheld their appeal, particularly if the motorist introduces new arguments at POPLA which are accepted.
However, if the PPC should have accepted the original appeal because they knew or should have known that POPLA would uphold it - for instance where the motorist has appealed on GPEOL to a PPC known for repeatedly losing on GPEOL - then a counter claim is probably merited.

This is why I suggest saving the tactic for PE and making it a single point appeal on GPEOL. We need to be careful not to suggest that all motorists who win at POPLA are entitled to charge the PPC regardless, because (and I emphasise I am not a legal expert) it seems unlikely they would later win in court unless they set it out very specifically from the beginning on the basis that the PPC are knowingly wasting their time.

The_Deep

It is a good idea in theory, but how many people would go through with it? Very few I would wager.