Fine after 30seconds

System

also should I wait for the claimant to send there WS to me first so I can counter argue?

You can but you risk having your WS struck out for not following a court order. And as law is a two-way street, if they don't send theirs on time, then you can apply to have their WS struck out.

But facts are facts and you have time to compare yours and theirs and produce your arguments. That is what the 14 days gap is for.

jrc123

ah so I can still argue their WS in court? and break down the points I disagree on?

System

Yes. In fact that is what the judge wants you to do so he can have the minimum of decisions to make.

Each point has to be argued on evidence or balance of probabilities (51%). Judges are not mind readers so make sure you have all your defence points into one of those two categories.

jrc123

thanks IamEmanrescu

Has anyone has a chance to see if I should anything else on my WS?
going to send this off today

thanks

Loadsofchildren123

jrc123 wrote: »

are these costs ok:

In the County Court at XXX

Claim No.: XXX

Between
XXX
(Claimant)
-v-
XXX
(Defendant)

DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 13/08/2017 £90.00 take a pay slip to court to evidence this
Tube travel from home address to Court £12.10
Sub-total £102.10 ======

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (10 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) £190.00
split these 10 hours up between each documents.
You can claim for reading the C's documents and court documents eg Orders, as well as drafting.
Split each hour up into parts - lawyers do 10 units of 6 minutes, you may find 5 minute units easier, it's up to you, but explain at the top how each hour is broken down:
So:
Orders x2 received from court: 3 units
Claim form: 2 units
Draft Acknowledgement of Service: 1 unit
Draft defence, including research into court rules re timetable and into law of contract: x units
Draft Witness Statement, including research: x units
Compiling documents to exhibit to WS and for Defendant's bundle: x units
Reading Claimant's Statement: x units
Preparation for court, Skeleton argument: x units
Drafting Schedule of costs: x units
Site visit (if you made one): x units
Correspondence with Claimant: x letters at x units
Correspondence with court: x letters at x units [if any]


Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage (would help if you could split this up - eg how many pages copied/printed and how much per page? How many letters/documents posted and at what cost?): £15.00

Sub-total £205.00 ======

£ 307.10 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

are these right?

Comments above for you - the more you break this down the better. Have a look at the one Sassii did, they won £1,500 in costs!

jrc123

Noted on that LoadsofChildren123.

was the WS ok? thanks for all your points
going to send off today

then wait for the claimants WS so i can do a skeleton arguement.

thanks

Loadsofchildren123

jrc123 wrote: »

hi I have my updated WS is this ok?

Claim No. xxx
In the Matter of:
xxx Limited (Claimant)
-v-
xxx (Defendant)
___________________________________
Witness Statement
___________________________________

I, [name], of [address], WILL SAY as follows:


1. I am the defendant in this matter and am a litigant in person.

1. On 12th May 2017, I drove through xxx. and had to pull over for a short period of time. As I entered xxx there was no sign at the entrance and nothing to distinguish it as private land or that it was subject to parking controls (see photograph at page 4 of 10, labelled Exhibit xx-01).

2. I had to pull over [you say for a short period of time, why? Did you for instance want to make a call? Were you early for a meeting and had a few minutes to kill?] I saw a suitable spot to park, but I could see a sign on the metal railings and so I pulled over and got out of the car to go and read it before deciding whether or not to park there. The sign was quite small and there was no way I could read it from my car. As I got out to go and read it, I left my car engine running and the driver's door open, and this can clearly be seen in photographs taken by the Claimant's operative (through pages 5-7 of 10, photographs labelled Exhibit xx-05,xx-06, xx-07).

3. I walked over to the sign and read it. I could see immediately that it was about parking and I wanted to see if I could or could not park there (e.g. if I could pay and display, or pay online, or whether I needed a permit). When I read the sign, I realised that I could not pay to park there and so I turned to walk back to my car, intending to leave immediately. It was then that I noticed a person taking photographs of me. I assumed this person was employed by the parking company and so I shouted over to him that I'd just read the sign and was leaving.

4. The Claimant's own evidence in the form of photographs taken at the time, which it sent to me at my request, confirms what I have said above. It shows that I was there for 2 minutes and 10 seconds. This was the time it took me to pull over, put the car into parking mode, get out, walk over to the sign, read it, walk back to the car and drive off. It is clear that 2 minutes and 10 seconds does not constitute "parking" in any sense of the word.

I understand that in order to be able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA a private parking company like the Claimant must be a member of one of two ATAs [say what this stands for, is it Accredited Trade Association?]. This Claimant is a member of IPC (International Parking Community). A condition of such membership is that members must comply with a compulsory Code of Practice. Point 15 of that Code says -
The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice code of conduct states that a grace period (15.1 & 15.2) must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not.


The actual wording of the code is this:
(15.1) Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. [I've just moved this to here from below]


The grace period has two specific purposes: it gives a driver time prior to parking, in order to decide whether or not to accept the terms offered and to enter into a contract to park (precisely what 15.1 of the Code of Practice provides for), and/or it gives a driver time to leave a site at the end of any period of parking (which is provided for in paragraph 15.2 of the Code of Practice). It is therefore accepted by the Claimant's own ATA not inconceivable that once a driver enters a site, they may choose not to proceed to park once they have read the terms and conditions. For instance, the terms and conditions may prohibit parking, or the driver may realise they cannot comply with the terms offered (eg they do not have enough money to pay and display a ticket, or they may not qualify for a permit). Put simply, a driver has to be given the opportunity to read the terms offered and to decide whether or not to accept them.


A reasonable grace period in any car parking area would be the time it would take to look for any sign, to stop the car and go over to the sign to read and understand what it says, and then to return to the car and either park or drive away: this process took me precisely 2 minutes and 10 seconds, as the Claimant's own evidence shows. In fact, the British Parking Association (the other industry ATA) recommends a grace period of 10 minutes, which should be taken as a guide to what is reasonable.


The Claimant's failure to observe any grace period at all in this case is in direct breach of its compulsory industry code of practice.


The grace period is important because no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses, during which the offeree has had the opportunity to find out and consider the terms being offered and to decide whether or not to accept them. In this case, once I had read the terms I decided not to accept them and I drove off, all within the space of 130 seconds.


(15.2) Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

It is clear that the grace period is meant for a driver to have time after entering a site to find a parking space, to leave, and to read the signage on display.

5. On this occasion, once I had Having read the terms offered, I decided not to accept them, and I left the site immediately. I did not park, I did not receive any benefit of parking, I simply stopped momentarily to decide whether or not I could or should park there and decided not to. The Claimant's own photographs confirm that this is all that happened (through pages 8-10 of 10, photographs labelled xx-05. xx-06 and xx-07).

6. I was surprised to then receive a charge through the post. I appealed it immediately. I found the Claimant's letter quite threatening - it mentioned suing me for the money if I didn't pay, and the consequences of a CCJ. I panicked and, foolishly, I said in the appeal that I had pulled over because I felt sick. I said this because I panicked, and I thought that this would be more convincing. I am not an educated person and I did not understand then what I understand now about how parking contracts are formed, and about the requirement on the Claimant to comply with IPC Code of Practice (specifically by applying a grace period). Had I, back then, done all the research I have now done, I would have known that there was no contract and the attempt to obtain money from me was baseless, and I would have appealed on the basis that I had not "parked" and I had not accepted any terms and conditions because, once I had read them I decided not to remain there. The fact remains that whatever I said in my appeal, I was only on the site for 130 seconds and the Claimant's own photographs show me exiting the car to read the signage and then getting back in to drive away.

7. I also did not realise then, but realise now that the land is subject to Railway Byelaws, therefore this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which leases the land/or the landowner and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate!!!8217;s court, not the county court.
The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.

The IPC Code of Conduct 9.1 states; It is your (PCM Ltd) responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them. PCM have broken this code as stated in the points above.

8. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. This Claim should never have been brought and this should have been obvious to the Claimant from its own photographs and from what its operative witnessed on the day.

9. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Legal representative's costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable.

10. The claimant described the charge of £50 as 'legal fees' not 'contractual costs', CPR.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

11. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £xxx. This is the epitome of a typical robo-claim emanating from what MPs described recently as an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) industry.

12. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

13. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

14. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.


STATEMENT of TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true
Dated the xxxxxx
Signed: xxx (Defendant)

Have made some changes.
I don't focus on byelaws cases, so that bit may require some work and some comment from someone else.

jrc123

hi all,

today is D-day so far the claimant hasn't :

*Paid the court fee £25
*Sent me their witness statement

They have by 4pm to do both.

If they dont do either then it's struck out?
If they pay but dont send me the WS then I can email the court to say this? what would i say?

Any advise is much appreciated.

thanks

jrc123

can anyone help?

I have emailed the court to through this claim out now

anything else i should do?

Le_Kirk

You could try phoning the court and asking if the court fee has been paid and, if not, has the case been struck out. Meantime, keep up with what you have to do, i.e. don't miss any deadlines.