County Court Claim Regarding Parking Tickets

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think a WS is a good idea too, as per the set aside threads where they too get a short hearing.

DO NOT file or bring the photo of the sign on the wall with terms on it! FORGET THAT ONE.

ONLY file the one saying 'visitors parking only' and point out in your WS that it does not mention permits in those bays, no does it mention any contractual sum of money purporting to be a parking charge.

File PACE v Lengyel, as evidence, to try to force the DJ to actually read a PROPER decision:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

It's a transcript in one of the links there, and there's a blog explaining it here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

And state that the maximum sum that the Claimant could claim is the sum on the sign, and there is no sum stated on the vistor parking sign, and no signs, no caveat, no contract.

Even if the Court is minded to say that the second sign elsewhere on a wall applies, that means the contractual sum remains at the £100 stated there. Not double that and add £50!

Parking firms not only cannot claim for damages (as confirmed in Beavis, because they are not in possession of the land) but it was also held by the Supreme Court that a parking charge (£85 in Beavis) is already significantly inflated to include significant profit over and above the low costs of a parking enforcement model.

There are no damages and these cannot be added, or this would constitute double recovery and in any case, damages are only possible for a landowner to claim, under the tort of trespass (PACE v Lengyel confirms).

Fight to distinguish your case from Beavis!

Sounds like this Judge wants to deal with all parking charge cases as if Beavis applies carte blanche.

Draw the distinctions, show that this Claimant not only does not have clear signs (unlike in Beavis) but also has no legitimate interest or commercial justification excuse (the main reason that PE got away with disengaging the penalty rule, which is always potentially engaged in parking charge claims). In Beavis it was said that every case must be fact specific and what must be considered in every case is the 'legitimate interest' (or not) and the prominence of the terms & charge on clear signage, otherwise a parking charge falls foul of Lord Dunedin's penalty rules, which still apply.

You MUST have mentioned signs in your 3 bullet points? So build on that with a decent WS & evidence.

As above, just to make sure you got it all.

This will be an uphill task.

System

Sounds like this Judge wants to deal with all parking charge cases as if Beavis applies carte blanche.

Hate to be a pooper ..but Beavis does apply carte blanche as it is a Supreme Court case.

The ratio of Beavis was a secondary contract to enforce the first one IF that secondary contract is necessary. In many cases the first contract will contain enough teeth (GPEOL). Where GPEOL is not enough a secondary one is needed as long as the penalty amount it is not extravagant.

It's a very simple idea. It's all to do with nuisance and what nuisance needs controlled. And is always relates to the underlying contract - which is what needs identifying first.

VCS v Crutchley at JLA is a good example of it working for the PPC in practice.

SamSteel89

Thanks Coupon but I think I included the information you provided in my WS on the previous page or us it not enough? Thank Emanresu, I will look into VCS v Crutchley

nosferatu1001

A WS is a statement of facts and references to your evidence

A skeleton is a summary of your defence, the C claim and WS, and how you win they lose. Frankly right now I wouldnt construct a formal one. Just give yourself a bullet point list - starting with: NO CONTRACT TO PAY THAT AMOUNT. The signs YOU followed exactly, another sign cannot override that, and even if they claim the other sign aappleis well the CRA2015 says if something is ambigupous, you win as consumer - you get the most advantageous one possible.

But you NEED to push for a proper hearing.