Parking Eye Court Claim

GingerBob_3

It appears to me as though the scammers really do have the upper hand. Quite apart from the vast majority who just pay up, those that don't sometimes offer a settlement (e.g. this case) and at best all other victims are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time, and some money, on the issue, with no compensation. There must be a better way for the victims.

trisontana

There are a couple of people who are suing PE for the cost and time spent trying to get PE to drop their silly claims.

spacey2012

You have sent the letter offering to have the dispute dealt with by ADR ?
If not, why not.

da_rule

Send it without prejudice save as to costs - there is a specific reason for this within Civil Courts.

Also, you don't have to break the offer down. Just offer £20 as a global settlement (so that it includes all costs etc).

da_rule

The reason with making it 'without prejudice save as to costs' is because Civil Procedure Rule 36.13 sets out that all Part 36 offers are treated as such. Therefore your offer may not be treated as compliant if you don't mark it as such. The idea of a Part 36 offer is to invoke certain cost consequences if it is unreasonably rejected.

You can make an on the record offer and a Part 36 offer (separate letters required). However, the on the record offer would not have the cost consequences that Part 36 offers.

liseylou

da_rule wrote: »

The reason with making it 'without prejudice save as to costs' is because Civil Procedure Rule 36.13 sets out that all Part 36 offers are treated as such. Therefore your offer may not be treated as compliant if you don't mark it as such. The idea of a Part 36 offer is to invoke certain cost consequences if it is unreasonably rejected.

You can make an on the record offer and a Part 36 offer (separate letters required). However, the on the record offer would not have the cost consequences that Part 36 offers.

Thanks da_rule, I thought there was a reason why, so before I send in my offer I will do some more research first - sorry it takes me a while to comprehend such information. I know I have read it in full either in PP or Bargepole's guide.

da_rule

Basically a Part 36 offer (which has to be 'without prejudice save as to costs') has consequences if it is rejected. If it is rejected and ParkingEye either fail to beat or equal the offer (i.e. they are awarded less money) then there are specific consequences. The court should order that ParkingEye, pay any costs incurred by themselves or you from the date of expiry of the offer. Whilst (specifically after the Jackson reforms) judges are under increased pressure to 'punish' those who come to court on a whim, the way they do this is by ordering adverse costs orders. There are cases where a case has been brought and won by a side that has acted 'badly' in bringing the case and they have then been hit with their costs plus the other sides, which equated to more than the damages they were awarded. The question of what was done to keep the matter out of court on has effect at the costs stage (after the decision as to liability has been made) and this is the point that Part 36 offers are revealed. So the court will be able to see that you have been reasonable in your negotiations and attempts to settle the matter.

There is nothing wrong with making 'on the record' offers as well, but they cannot invoke the cost consequences, also, it may prejudice your case, which is why 'without prejudice' is used.

liseylou

spacey2012 wrote: »

You have sent the letter offering to have the dispute dealt with by ADR ?
If not, why not.

I have included this in my defence.

liseylou

da_rule wrote: »

Basically a Part 36 offer (which has to be 'without prejudice save as to costs') has consequences if it is rejected. If it is rejected and ParkingEye either fail to beat or equal the offer (i.e. they are awarded less money) then there are specific consequences. The court should order that ParkingEye, pay any costs incurred by themselves or you from the date of expiry of the offer. Whilst (specifically after the Jackson reforms) judges are under increased pressure to 'punish' those who come to court on a whim, the way they do this is by ordering adverse costs orders. There are cases where a case has been brought and won by a side that has acted 'badly' in bringing the case and they have then been hit with their costs plus the other sides, which equated to more than the damages they were awarded. The question of what was done to keep the matter out of court on has effect at the costs stage (after the decision as to liability has been made) and this is the point that Part 36 offers are revealed. So the court will be able to see that you have been reasonable in your negotiations and attempts to settle the matter.

There is nothing wrong with making 'on the record' offers as well, but they cannot invoke the cost consequences, also, it may prejudice your case, which is why 'without prejudice' is used.

OK, I understand this, thank you. But if I offer a lesser amount (than their original WP offer-see attached), surely this will backfire on me if I lose in court? Or is it only the Claimant that this affects?

liseylou

Some technical guidance required from the regulars please - zzzLazyDaisy, if you are about I would welcome your feedback too please......

Reading the attached letter from PE above, would anyone else make reference to the points raised in my responding WP Part 36 counter offer? I understand that this is probably a standard computer generated letter but these events differ from the actual events:

Firstly, the original PCN was £100 discounted to £60 - not £50.

Also, the only correspondence I received was the PCN reminder and LBCCC (which was at a time when forums suggested to ignore). When I received the CCC I tried to appeal to PE on the grounds of GPEOL via POPLA, requesting a financial breakdown to evidence this. They declined stating 'You have not formed a legally binding contract with PE, under which any right to invoice for payment for goods or services may arise; therefore as stated your invalid invoice is rejected and a copy of your correspondence will be forwarded to the landowner'. This would indicate that they are therefore NOT the landowner, wouldn't you agree?

In addition, I informed them in my appeal letter, of their duty (and mine) to reduce their loss under common law, in accordance with the Civil Justice Council. To which they replied stating that I had exceeded their time period of 28 days therefore my appeal was rejected.

So I did NOT ignore their correspondence - I just didn't receive it all and they chose to reject it.

Also, if they are only allowing me 7 days in which to settle their 'offer', which is not compliant with CPR Part 36 timescales, i.e. allowing 21 days to accept, then 14 days to pay. Likewise, their letter also does not specify that this offer is intended to have the consequences of Part 36, therefore again, it does NOT COMPLY.

I will amend my counter offer to include WP, but I am not sure whether to highlight their mistakes (except the point about the original amount as this could backfire).