Court in 2 weeks

Mrnick74

I probably haven't handled this terribly well (ignored it for 3 years - actually it went strangely quiet until Parking Eye vs Beavis!) but now I get a day in court...

I've just received a sheaf of 'evidence' (from BW Legal acting for Excel) that has been submitted to court (which I would link but I can't as new forum user).

I'm no lawyer but it's got more than a few holes in it so I'll have a go at making a case and if the judge decides I do in fact owe these cowboys THREE HUNDRED QUID so be it I guess :mad:

My main question at this stage is whether I should I submit a written defence or just verbally on the day? I'd probably prefer to do the latter but not sure what the protocol is?


This is the only correspondence I've ever sent, relatively recently dated 07/02/2017:



Dear Sir or Madam

Please be advised that I will be defending this case.

In your correspondence you have kindly brought to my attention the case of Parking Eye Limited vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest, specifically to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets. Given that I was patronising a restaurant served by the car park, that there is no ‘P & D Expiry’ entered on the ticket and I am able to evidence that I returned to my vehicle within an acceptable grace period as required by the IPC Code of Practice I shall contend that the circumstances of this case do not justify either the initial penalty of £100 or the escalating costs pursued.

Furthermore, the case law deriving from UKSC 67 did not exist in February 2014 which is presumably why you have not brought a case until June 2016, 2 years and 4 months after the alleged incident. I have submitted a Freedom of Information Request to HM Courts & Tribunals Service for details of cases brought before the courts since the ruling of the Supreme Court in November 2015 in order to demonstrate an unscrupulous opportunism to pursue historic Parking Charge Notices where the particulars of the case have so little in common with UKSC 67 as to make reliance on that case irrelevant.

I wish to note also that my surname has been consistently misspelled on all correspondence meaning that it is likely I have not received all communication on this matter.

Regards

bargepole

Unfortunately, your argument about the Beavis ruling not being applicable, is incorrect.

Statute laws only apply from the date they are enacted, but case law is simply a declaration (or clarification) of what the law has always been. Mr Beavis' parking charge was actually issued in 2013.

You would also have had a letter from the Court, stating that you should file and serve a Witness Statement not later than 14 days before the hearing. You will struggle without that.

Coupon-mad

Yep but he can always work on the WS this weekend and file it on Monday.

Sounds like this OP needs to read the NEWBIES thread (and should also have read the Court directions in the letter) and get their proverbial finger out to grab victory from the jaws of defeat. Start doing this properly, albeit a little late.

Which court? Forget this sort of rubbish (sorry, harsh but true, OP):

I wish to note also that my surname has been consistently misspelled on all correspondence meaning that it is likely I have not received all communication on this matter.

Lamilad

(which I would link but I can't as new forum user).

Post the Dropbox or one drive link change http to hxxp then a regular will activate the links.

Can you also link the redacted claim form - just front page showing particulars of claim. When is your actual court date?

Mrnick74

Thanks folks

hxxp://drive.google.com/open?id=0B93C0Wu5SHkbTU04VjVnTmx0VzA

Court date is 19th May

Mrnick74

Obviously I've been totally naive...how long do you folk spend on this s**t??

This what I've come up with so far...have I a hope in hell or shall I just play a game of trying to get in as many quotes from court based dramas as I can? Though can only think of "TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" from a Few Good Men

• I am the defendant in this case having experienced intimidating, and misdirected, communication from ‘BW Legal’ since June 2016, 2 years and 4 months from the alleged offence.
• Correspondence has consistently mispelled my surname and latterly, inexplicably, has been to my wife’s email address leaving me uncertain that I have received all communication on the matter.
• The contract witness statement (evidence, page 1 of NA01) signed on behalf of the landowner RPI Pension Fund is dated 24/09/15; the date of the alleged offence is over a year and a half earlier on 07/02/2014
• £100 is clearly excessive, even in relation to Parking Eye vs Beavis (2015) and clearly a ‘penalty’ for an overstay of less than 15 minutes necessitated by patronage of a local business served by the carpark i.e. a money making ‘scam’ to penalise drivers who park in good faith to utilise local amenities. Enforcement in favour of the claimant therefore against the public interest.
• There was no P & D expiry time entered on the ticket (page 2 of NA01)
• Terms & Conditions as enforced are unreasonable i.e. £100 ‘penalty’ for 15 minute overstay
• I was not “unwilling to contest”, rather unaware of right to appeal.
• In the case of Parking Eye Limited vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest, specifically to ‘efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets’. Given that I was patronising a restaurant served by the car park (evidence attached of payment to Panama Hatty’s of £111.80) and my 15 minute overstay, caused by that patronage, in no way compromised the efficient management of the carpark, the particulars of this case are different enough from PE vs B as to make reliance on that case irrelevant.
• I returned to my vehicle within an acceptable grace period (15 minutes) as required by IPC code of practice given delay caused by restaurant staff
• The 17 minutes overstay as stated is incorrect. I was present at the vehicle before the ticket was issued as recorded on the ticket (page 2 of NA01). Return to the vehicle was in fact within 15 minutes.
• Prominent signage is irrelevant, paid appropriate fee in good faith to patronage local business. Short delay in return to vehicle caused by that local business.
• I do not admit in open correspondence that I have breached Terms & Conditions; rather that I returned to the vehicle within an acceptable grace period as described above.

beamerguy

Mrnick74 wrote: »

Thanks folks

hxxp://drive.google.com/open?id=0B93C0Wu5SHkbTU04VjVnTmx0VzA

Court date is 19th May

Redact your personal info please

Mrnick74

County Court at Leeds

Mrnick74

Oops. Hang on

Mrnick74

hxxp://drive.google.com/file/d/0B93C0Wu5SHkbTDF3ZVZ0aVRLcTQ/view?usp=sharing

beamerguy

Mrnick74 wrote: »

hxxp://drive.google.com/file/d/0B93C0Wu5SHkbTDF3ZVZ0aVRLcTQ/view?usp=sharing

your name still shows as defendent
block out the claim number and on page 8
On the ticket all reference to this