Is Chaplair v Kumar the new Elliott v Loake

The_Deep

VCS appear to think so.

My brief reading of the case leads me to conclude that this is about landlords incurring costs for recovery of service charges often included as covenants in a lease which Judges in SCCs are refusing to award.

I am wondering why Simon Nosebogie Sillyperson thinks that this is relevant to parking charges. Is he being badly advised perhaps? Some reading

http://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/resources/articles/chaplair-limited-v-kumari-2015-ewca-civ-798

Umkomaas

I'm sure they'll still be quoting EvL for 'the keeper is the driver'; CvK will additionally be quoted to try to justify extra legal costs over and above the small claims cap on solicitor costs of £50.

It will no doubt intimidate many (kerching), and fool some doddery judges (kerching), until such time as it can be debunked via forum-assisted defences (as is slowly happening with EvL).

Coupon-mad

From that article:

''The reason Part 27 does not prevent costs recovery is that the costs the landlord seeks are contractual costs under the lease.''

As opposed to the pathetically vague 'indemnity costs if applicable' as listed by Gladstones (BW Legal try a similar pile of drivel) which were never listed on signage and if they were, these were buried in small print on a woeful sign which was never 'bound to have been seen'.

And in any case, double recovery being specifically mentioned in the POFA as effectively 'not allowed' - no doubt because it is recognised that the parking charge itself is already significantly inflated to more than cover costs - and rarely flies under the scope of the penalty rule anyway.

I tend to include this sort of thing in defences:

The sum seems to have been plucked from thin air and I assert these figures would not have appeared on the signs, since the BPA ceiling on parking charges is a maximum of £100 which is set at that high level due to it being intended under that Code of Practice and under the POFA that a parking charge encompasses incidentals and basic costs incurred. e.g. in Beavis, £85 was the only sum sought which was discussed in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as more than covering the costs of ParkingEye’s fully-automated and generic business model.

The_Deep

These claims are likely to be brought by Managing Agents, who, if they are unable to cover their legal costs, pass them on to the residents through their service charges.

I do not want to pay unnecessary charges because someone on HB (which I pay anyway), does not pay their way, and a judge takes pity on them.

beamerguy

BWLegal / VCS / Excel were really stupid citing the Loake case, maybe they got totally confused over the word "driver" which they are paranoid about
For the courts it was and is a no brainer

As already seen .......
Skipton judge rubbishes Elliot v Loake
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

Now they have a new wheeze with Chaplair v Kumar.:rotfl:

Totally unsure what the relationship is with a parking ticket and someone who owed rent ???

Scratching at straws again, this is really fantasy La La land stuff
This rubbish will probably have a judge doubled up in laughter

Any prediction on their next little wheeze ?????

Johno100

beamerguy wrote: »

Any prediction on their next little wheeze ?????

For keeper liability when not relying on POFA? Seemingly CPS v AJH Film Ltd.

Coupon-mad

Oh yes, that's a good one - a case about vicarious liability of a company and they are trying to allege that individual keepers have the same sort of joint & several liability for the conduct of drivers!