Need a little help prof of losses.

chrisjose1913

OK this is my response so far

""""With regards to Armtrac Security Services comments regarding Costs that Armtrac Security Services has suffered being irrelevant due to case law this is simply not true.


I'm not sure Armtrac understand the principles of case law, in order for a previous case to be relevant it must be a case where the facts/details of the case are somewhat similar to the current case in question - simply stating that case law has proved "XYZ" isn't enough, whether the charges are similar or not. They have not mentioned the case that armtrac claims to be relevant to this case, therefore the case law argument has no basis at this time.

I'm reading between the lines here and am thinking it's the PE v Beavis appeal.

If it is the Beavis appeal, then they have mis-read something:
Quote:
...loss is only relevant where the Operator claims an amount that is unconscionable.

this point applies to distinguishing whether a charge is a penalty or a claim for damages (damages by nature are based on losses) - it could be considered a penalty if the charge is "extravagant and unconscionable in comparison to the greatest conceivable loss". If it is "unconscionable..." then it's a penalty (and unenforceable), if it's not "unconscionable..." then it would be damages which would normally be based on losses. The original Beavis case allowed commercial justification, but it would be worth challenging such justification if the points in your case are different to the original Beavis Case.
I will like to point out that, being a BPA member at the time of issue and the start of the appeals process They have agreed to follow a code. I have found that Armtrac security services are bound to Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss according to BPA code of practice.
Armtrac Security Services Have clearly stated in their previous PPC evidence pack that they are claiming for breach of contract. The signage states “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS“ supports this fact, Because of this the BPA code is relevant.
I have only on the 28/04/15 been made aware of that they have moved IPC.
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance

Most the losses Armtrac Security Services make claim to are false. Many payments will have existed regardless of my self parking.

Attending staff wages is something I should not be expected to pay, as such costs to the company will have existed regardless. As I have not obstructed any staff from doing their jobs I have not caused any loss. I should not be expected to pay the sum of £30

I should not be expected to pay for the sum of £40 for the right to appeal

After reviewing the PPC evidence pack I noted Armtrac Security Services comment “We can clearly see in our photographic evidence that (my name) was fully aware that a pcn was issued.

I will like to point out I have not at any point made any claim to being the person in that photo.


I will also make the assessor aware all arguments armtrac serurity services present should comply with BPA and not IPC.


No contract with driver

Evidence in the public realm has indicated that the address used by Armtrac TR20 9WD does not exist or is out of date.!


The requirements of a company under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
SCHEDULE 2 Regulations 10(1) and 13(1)

Information relating to distance and off-premises contracts
The information referred to in regulations 10(1) and 13(1) is (subject to the note at the end of this
Schedule)—
(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium
of communication and to the goods or services;
(b) the identity of the trader (such as the trader’s trading name);
© the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the
trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to
contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;
(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and
identity of that other trader;
(e) if different from the address provided in accordance with paragraph ©, the geographical
address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of
another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader,
where the consumer can address any complaints;
(f) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods
or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner
in which the price is to be calculated.
I understand that if the address is incorrect then no contract was formed between the operator and the driver/keeper.

With regards to armtrac security services saying they have identified the creditor this is false simply heading the letter armtrac security services is not enough.

I have checked with companies house and I have found that the company ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED reg 06689212 has been dissolved since 2010. because of this I can assume armtrac security services are not making this £100 demand.

The letter mentions KBT Cornwall in the address. The armtrac security services have not specified who is making this claim. I don't know if the company is acting as an agent claiming losses on behalf of the land owner, or for themselves.

I feel at this stage I have presented multiple profs to why this appeal should be upheld."""""


any suggestions ?