HX CPM Non POFA compliant and citing Elliot v Locke

The_Deep

£245 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

WRT Elliot v Loake, ask them for a copy of the forensic report on the paint flakes.

They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Bargepole's concise defence is about signage.

There are 17 links to different defences written by Bargepole and others, try looking at a different one to see if it suits your circumstances better.

KeithP

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Bargepole's concise defence is about signage. In this case the defendant hasn't seen the signage as they were not the driver.

But the quality and quantity of the signs is still very relevant.

It is the signs that form the basis of any contract with the driver.

Even if the keeper, the Defendant, has not seen the signs, it is that alleged contract liability that is/has been transferred to the keeper.

Ignore the signs at your peril.


Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 13th May 2019 to file your Defence.

Mr_Picklehead

KeithP wrote: »

But the quality and quantity of the signs is still very relevant.

It is the signs that form the basis of any contract with the driver.

Even if the keeper, the Defendant, has not seen the signs, it is that alleged contract liability that is/has been transferred to the keeper.

Ignore the signs at your peril.


Remember...

Thanks, on reflection and after looking at them again I think it's imperative the defendant includes a defence point on signage... and yes I remember!!

bergkamp

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Thanks, on reflection and after looking at them again I think it's imperative the defendant includes a defence point on signage... and yes I remember!!

The Claimant's own witness statement damned them regarding signage in my case!

Coupon-mad

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

Thanks, on reflection and after looking at them again I think it's imperative the defendant includes a defence point on signage... and yes I remember!!

It is 100% vital in ANY defence to a PPC scammer claim, that you include the point that the signs are incapable of binding a driver due to how sparse they are and the tiny font used (bargepole's defences even put it in that way, so it's perfectly usable for a registered keeper Defendant).

In your first draft I think your first 6 points are worth including (maybe reduce the wordiness of them, though). Amalgamate them with bargepole's concise defence and make sure it's the one with the point about no standing/landowner authority (as one of the two bargepole example defences in the NEWBIES thread doesn't have that point and you need it).

Mr_Picklehead

Thanks - and is anything after the first six points not necessary / helpful?


Reading judgements it seems that most are won or lost on just one point - and several judges comment that they often see a kitchen sink defence with lots of points that (in their mind) are not relevant or don't stand up to legal scrutiny.... However the defendant is also mindful that you can't introduce new defence points later so may as well raise as many as possible, maybe?

Mr_Picklehead

Point 7 seems important to me. The IPC is quite specific that that wording must be used as far as I recall.

Mr_Picklehead

bergkamp wrote: »

The Claimant's own witness statement damned them regarding signage in my case!

Do you have a copy of it? Would you be happy to share it. I don't need it now but might be useful with regards to WS.

The_Deep

It is a always a good idea, where scammers quote Elliot v Loake, to ask for a copy on the forensics report on the paint flakes found on the damaged vehicle.