Please put me out of my misery...

mlang88

Ok cheers - if a judgement is made then, I believe that it is capped at a certain amount? And of course I realise you won't be able to give an accurate answer to this perhaps, but is the judgement likely to follow some kind of formula based on SIPS claims of time spent on this, or is it entirely up to the courts consideration of both sides evidence (i.e. could the court say "ok that's a bit unreasonable" and decide on something a little more arbitrary - may be clutching at straws there).

Cheers again, I've found the thread on what to expect on the day.

pappa_golf

costs are limited to a max of £50

the "invoice" cannot be raised to a level above that stated

Redx

the maximum the judge may allow is about £175 if you have argued against all the additional costs that are not allowed , so assume anything between say zero pounds and say £250 , but typically between £100 and £200

its called small claims court for a reason , and so the claimant can only claim certain limited costs

there are other threads on here that details those costs and fees , if you read enough of them , but £175 is a fair assumption to make , based on the original charge plus 2 filing fees etc

you wont be "fined"
you wont be "punished"
you wont have your car taken off you
you wont be banned from driving
you wont be banished to Mars
they wont take your kids off you
your cat or dog or hamster is safe

mlang88

Ok perfect thanks for that. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's good to know anyway!

Coupon-mad

You haven't mentioned your Witness Statement and evidence you had to file in September. I don't like to see a big gap in advice then months later, a person coming back days before their hearing, it makes me twitchy to be sure you have followed the required process as set out in your court date letter.

Please confirm you have filed your WS and evidence in time (not just the defence), with copies to the court and Gladstones, and what it said/what evidence you are relying upon for the hearing.

mlang88

Hi I have submitted it but I had to label it as 'urgent' as I didn't submit in time as I was away and obviously had other things on my mind. Only myself to blame of course, but hopefully it will be considered. I can post if required? I have written what I think is both a skeleton argument and a WS but not sure if I have done this correctly as I was up against it time-wise of course. I used arguments which I think may be far stronger than mine, posted previously on this board. I think mine relies mainly on ambiguity more than anything.

One more thing, that may be too late to factor as an argument now, I cannot find any planning application for the site in question on the Manchester CC planning portal - do they, therefore, have no permission to post signage here and as such, is it illegal? Feel this could be quite pertinent, but understand it may be too late now...

EDIT - When I say I used arguments that may be stronger than mine, I mean I used template letters which I felt maybe had stronger arguments, so trimmed out all irrelevant information.

DoaM

Planning permission is rarely considered by judges, unless the defendant has made a very clear and compelling case as to why it is relevant.

Coupon-mad

As long as the other side and the court has a WS from you that's good to know.

As for a skeleton, are you writing that now and including transcripts of other cases, and evidence to support your legal arguments, or has that already been filed with the WS?

Don't forget the costs schedule to be filed not less than 24 hours before (with the skeleton if you like).

mlang88

Hi,

I have submitted the WS - as I read on another thread, I gather you can include your witness statement together with your skeleton argument? Is there a time limit on submitting a skeleton argument then, if you can submit up to the day before (with cost schedule).

I have included legal arguments and all evidence in the form of pictures of the signage, proof of previous parking sessions on site, and then some letters sent on behalf of myself through my local MP (this is more to highlight the fact that this was a mistake made based on the misinformation provided by SIPS). I called the courts to check whether or not it would be considered, and they just said its with the judges files - not sure whether to take that as a 'yes' or 'no'.

I feel I am relying quite heavily on the judge thinking the same as me, that SIPS asking for a 'valid P&D ticket' in addition to a 'valid permit' seems a bit contradictory.

Also, I have noted that Gladstones in their response have argued that 'It doesn't matter that you haven't seen the sign, we think you should have seen the signs as they are large enough etc' - If they read my argument properly, they would see that I hadn't actually said this, I said they were unclear. I think it would be worth bringing to the courts attention - particularly as they are chasing around £150 in costs on top of the maximum £100 charge for the alleged breach of contract.

Coupon-mad

With your skeleton argument - which has no deadline (because you don't have to prepare one) but must be filed in advance, like anything else - I would make a point about the unconscionable added costs of £150 plucked out of thin air, when in Beavis, only £85 and NO COSTS were recoverable.

Include a printout of these quotes from the judgment which show that all parties agreed that the £85 already included sufficient profit to fund its business activities and there can be no argument to add more costs on top as if there has been some damage or loss caused - that would be completely untrue:

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying. On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms.

98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main
objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...

193. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

198. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.

286. ParkingEye imposed the parking charge in order to encourage the prompt turnover of car parking spaces and also to fund its own business activities and make a profit.

287. That legitimate interest would not justify the parking charge if it were out of all proportion to that interest, or, in other words, exorbitant. In deciding whether the charge was exorbitant, I think that the court can look at the statutorily authorised practice of local authorities in England and Wales and also the recommendations of the accredited trade association, the BPA.

You can also add that it was the will of Parliament when introducing the POFA Schedule 4 in 2012, that parking firms could not make hay by 'double recovery', which is why the only sum stated as recoverable in cases where the registered keeper is being pursued, is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. No more. And both Trade Associations set a ceiling of £100 which is over and above the 'healthy profit' model used in ParkingEye v Beavis.

This is further supported by ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd (CA). [2013]QB, when they sued the pants off one of their 'clients' for daring to cancel the contract due to the parking firm sending Somerfield's customers allegedly 'deceitful and intimidating' letters, transcript here:

https://7kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ParkingEye_2013-Q.B.-840_1_1.pdf

5 The basic charge was £75, reduced to £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the Penalty Ticket, i e the first letter. This amount the judge held not to be a penalty and thus enforceable as against the motorist. If payment was not made within a specified time the charge increased to £135 which the judge held was probably a penalty and thus unenforceable.

So all the evidence is there to discount any attempt to ladle more money on top, under some old excuse of damages or indemnity (whatever that's meant to mean).

A 'normal' (in the eyes of the IPC and their fee-paying members) feature of this nasty business model is suing victims, so that (minimal) cost is already factored into the model and SIP undoubtedly make no loss from operating at the location, even if some cases reach small claim level. Gladstones are known to offer their services free or at vastly reduced cost to their members, and the small claims fees when paid in bulk, are tiny and even taking, say, 10% of victims to court makes no significant dent in the profits of the scheme and certainly no indemnity/damages arise, over and above the already extremely-escalated sum of £100.

It is also very important to make sure you provide evidence that the signs were unclear, illegible, sparse and/or contradictory or ambiguous. This can be vital to win over a Judge.