Court papers SIP/ Gladstone “failure to display”

Bucko78

In the post above, by coupon mad, could I kindly ask why the Beavis case could be referred to (where I mention about no loss being suffered.)

The Beavis case was won based upon the courts deciding that a charge was enforceable and fair:
-where the company solely relied upon a revenue by misuse of the car park their primary function was to manage it and prevent abuse of the facility (not to collect or be a beneficiary of hourly tariffs)

-It had to be commercially viable for the ppc with a weighted charge to catch those breaching the parking terms and conditions..the £85 was justified based on the ppc having no other form of revenue.

So, where a car park operates on a tariff based system they are not solely reliant on managing the deviant drivers who say: park over two bays or don’t pay.
The tariff charged for that service generates income to allow the car park to be viable as a business.
If the tariff is paid they are a beneficiary of this business, so to effectively run this business they are duty bound to monitor, service the car park anyway to keep it functional..ie, when they collect the money maintain the machine..etc
So what I’m saying is my terminology of loss is different to that of the Beavis case.. I paid what was required to authenticate my presence there.

maybe someone could explain.?

[Deleted User]

1. You assume that the PPC as supposed to the landowner keeps the ticket fees - that's a big assumption
2. Beavis is authority for the proposition that keeping the turnover of cars using a parking facility has a commercial value to the landowner

Beavis is NOT authority for all parking cases.

In Beavis terms were deemed agreed to and breached by the overstay. Your primary case is that the terms were agreed to, but not breached because a ticket was both purchased and displayed.

Bucko78

Thanks John,

So to pre-empt the claimant shouting Beavis case..!

Should I extract that from the script? Also would they be relying on this to reaffirm their claim.?
Would there be any line which could be added to counter that statement other than what you have suggested above..

Thankyou kindly in advance.

[Deleted User]

I'd lose most of 11, yes. Particulars can reference case law, but dont really need lengthy reciting of the judgments referred to - you can do that at trial (if you are confident enough).

It also shrouds the core argument. The no loss point here can be distinguished from beavis because here there is none (no overstay, correctly parked and ticketed). In beavis the loss was there - just not a direct pecuniary one.

Hence the value in having a parking scheme for a shop so that their customers can more often than not get a space.

..or so your argument goes.......

nosferatu1001

In a free scheme, the incentive is turnover - they dont want people staing all day, they want more people through doors
In a pay and display, as long as you pay you can stay there as long as they allow. If this limit isnt exceeded there is no justificaiton for any penalty.

Bucko78

After submitting my defence and a counterclaim notification.. we have received this back today from the solicitors.. (see attached below..)

I don’t understand why they are saying we don’t have to attend court, and how a judgement can be made by court papers only.. are they expecting us not to rightfully defend out corner?

Can they say all this.. ? they have submitted this nonesense to counter the fact we need paying back should these be found to have unlawfully dragged us to court for no wrong doing..
A counter claim of a day’s wages parking, fuel costs, and the £25 court fee was entered.. se below how they have responded..

Any further guidance would be great.. cheers

CLAIM NO: **********


SIP PARKING LTD
(CLAIMANT)

-AND-

********************

(DEFENDANT)

__________________________

DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
__________________________


1. The Claimant requests that the Counterclaim be struck out as it is entirely without merit pursuant to 3.4(2)(a) Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

2. The Defendant has made the Counterclaim against the Claimant in the sum of £*** for loss earnings, car parking, fuel and Court fees.

3. The Defendant avers that they will require a full day off from their employment to attend Court. The Claimant rejects that a full day is required to attend the hearing. My instructed Solicitor, when filing the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the claim requests that the matter is heard on the papers alone, therefore neither party is required to attend. It would be at the Defendant’s request to have the matter heard at an oral hearing in front of the Judge, therefore the Claimant should not be liable to pay the alleged loss of earnings. Further, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence of how much they are to lose in lost income.

4. The Defendant considers their parking and fuel should be paid for by the Claimant, which is rejected. When filing their Direction’s Questionnaire, the Defendant can request at which Court the matter is heard at, therefore the travel and parking costs should be minimal and in any event, as reiterated in the above paragraph it would be at the Defendant’s request to attend Court.

5. The Claimant should not bear the costs of the Defendant making the counterclaim and having to pay the applicable Court fee as this is made at the Defendant’s own choosing.


6. Notwithstanding the above, this element of the counterclaim is clearly nothing more than a claim for costs that should be dealt with after liability has been determined. Notwithstanding this, there is no jurisdiction for the Defendant to recover the costs in the sum claimed or indeed at all.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Defence to Counterclaim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.



Gladstones Solicitors, on behalf of the Claimant

Umkomaas

2. The Defendant has made the Counterclaim against the Claimant in the sum of £*** for loss earnings, car parking, fuel and Court fees.

In the absence of anyone with court experience coming through this evening, I just thought I’d flag up that the above list of items for a ‘counterclaim’ are almost entirely appropriate to a Costs Schedule, not a counterclaim.

Bucko78

Could you elaborate I have no idea what the difference is..we paid £25 to have the right to claim back our losses for a day in court.
It wasn’t based on hourly rates, but two people in a car travelling to an (unspecified court at the time with reasonable costings)

My thoughts on the above were that, I am innocent till proven guilty.. if I am not guilty and I have been tried at random (phishing) like most legitimate people, ( into be provoked into paying up) then the counterclaim was to recoupe any costs which I attribute to them taking me to court.

I say this under the pretences that they are so !!!! sure of themselves winning that they don’t want the barrel of the gun turning on them and costing them in the long run. ( Hence they are not so sure are they..if they defend it prematurely)

Umkomaas

In the context of private parking issues, counterclaims are more appropriate to harassment (quite a high threshold to reach) and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

A costs schedule covers things like travel/parking costs to attend court, litigant in person costs at £19ph for all the research and preparation work for the case, up to £95 for time off from work for the defendant only, costs of stationery, postage, phone calls and the like.

I don’t think what you’re ‘counterclaiming’ for is much outside the costs schedule items I’ve listed above. What happens now in relation to your counterclaim fee, I’m not certain - if either see this, maybe LOC123 or Johnersh (both lawyers) will comment.

Bucko78

If they have contacted the dvla and obtained my details in the finding that I have indeed displayed my ticket then they could be seen to have breached my data protection.
I said all along that the ticket was displayed and they’ve challenged me to prove likewise.

I take it I cannot add these now..?