any updates from scotland yet (cel)

bazster

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

do you know how "legally incurred" is defined ?

I think the more accurate criterion would be "if they are actually incurred". Rachel Ledson is an employee of ParkingEye, how the hell can the 2 seconds it takes her to put her signature on a claim cost £50? If push came to shove PE would be entirely unable to prove that they did actually incur £50 in legal costs.

By all means complain to the SRA.

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

I think the more accurate criterion would be "if they are actually incurred". Rachel Ledson is an employee of ParkingEye, how the hell can the 2 seconds it takes her to put her signature on a claim cost £50? If push came to shove PE would be entirely unable to prove that they did actually incur £50 in legal costs.

By all means complain to the SRA.

They rely on the precedent of Nossen's Letter Patent (1969), in which it was ruled that in-house solicitors could add charges to a claim, if any 'expert services' were required.


If I help anyone prepare a defence, I always include a paragraph saying that as they issue up to 1,000 claims a week, and the solicitor's name and signature - now Roseanna Breaks, not Rachel Ledson - is added electronically, through an automated process without the solicitor even seeing them, they cannot possibly justify such a figure.


Their 'Reply To Defence' then comes back, containing the usual farrago of lies, half-truths, misleading statements and irrelevant cases. One of the lies they put down is that expert services were required in this case.

Ivor_Pecheque

Our case took 4 hours of The Court time, and we had lot's of points to put across.

It was important to focus on the Judges reaction, verbally, and non verbally. We therefore hurried across some points, which he seemed to find less important than others.

One of our concerns, which we skipped over at the time, were irregularities around the witness statements. Only small things, (the various documents seemed to be copied rather than originals, format issues etc).

Not sure if any illegality took place, but have kept everything Parking Eye sent us, just in case there are any accountability issues that need airing in the future.

pogofish

I'm reliably informed that CEL are back to some of their old tricks in one or more of the car parks involved in the case.

I had a friend in a state of near breakdown turn-up on my door last week, telling me that they had been bluntly told that these spaces were legally enforceable, because it had been to court and could now make the charges stick, they would be stuck with a full-on fine, record and the debt collectors would soon come knocking if they failed to pay-up.

Hopefully I sent them away forewarned and with the resolution to stick-out the scary stuff but I am hoping to get copies of any paperwork to see if any of this rubbish is echoed there. :mad: