Claim form received for UKCPM/Gladstones case

KeithP

geordie777 wrote: »

I have submitted a large costs schedule via email to the court on Monday morning, stating that the solicitors have pursued the case knowing their evidence is a lie.

Anything else I have forgotten?

Did you send a copy of your costs schedule to Gladstones too?

geordie777

No, I didn't send as the advice from CM was to submit to court just before hearing, so wouldn't get to Gladstones in time by snail mail. I can email a copy to them now.

I have read all the advice in sticky, was just having a last minute panic I had forgotten something!

KeithP

But C-m did say:

I think you should submit now (to the court and claimant) a costs schedule setting out all your hours wasted in this farce...

My emphasis.

Ok, she later said send it last minute, but nowhere did anyone say not to send it to the Claimant, did they?

Still, you are where you are.

I would suggest emailing your costs schedule to Gladstones now and take an extra copy with you tomorrow and try to pass it the the Claimant's rep in the waiting room beforehand.

geordie777

Thanks KeithP. I have emailed it to them now, and will take an extra copy with me to court.

geordie777

So I attended my court hearing at Liverpool today. Gladstones elected not to send anyone to the hearing. The judge was very nice, she complimented me on my court bundle, said it was well organised and easy to read ( so thanks to you all!). She opened with the words 'I won't keep you long', so I knew she had already made her decision. She asked me one question about my witness statement - was it the case that the vehicle was stationary waiting to move into another bay? On answering yes, she stated she found in my favour!

I asked for the costs set out in my schedule, but she said only lawyers can claim for time spent on preparing a case. I did get my £95 loss of earnings, so was happy that I took some money away with me.

Thank you all so much for your help.

Coupon-mad

Yay - another one bites the dust!

Yours is the second winning Court claim case v UKCPM reported on this forum today - do read the other thread by bargepole who helped a person win at Guildford Court!

In your case at Liverpool you had what we would consider, a harder court (they do not always 'get' that parking firm claims are scams) but in your case how could she fail to see it?

Just reminding everyone the close to fraudulent PCN in this case was for giving way to another car leaving, effectively part of a 3 point turn, and the scammer took ONE photo from the BACK of the car, at distance - exactly the sort of predatory ticketing that should be illegal:

geordie777 wrote: »

This is my witness statement...

1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and there is no obligation to name the driver to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. This is not an obligation or failure on my part; I had no reason to respond to the parking company and this is supported by Appendix 5, an extract from the POPLA annual report 2015.

2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts UK CPM to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

3. On the day in question, the driver of the vehicle was visiting a Wetherspoons pub in Whickham, the Harry Clasper on Front Street. The carpark for the pub offers 2 hours free parking, and is managed by another parking firm.

On entering the carpark, the driver noted the bays were all occupied, save for 2 or 3 which are on the same land, but belong to another business. Just before leaving the carpark, a customer left the pub and indicated to the driver that they were leaving the carpark and would let them have the parking space.

The driver of my vehicle pulled into one of the empty bays in order to allow the other car to leave. It was whilst waiting in this bay that a photograph was taken from a distance, allegedly showing the vehicle parked in contravention to the signage.

Appendix 8 is a copy of the case of Jopson Vs Homeguard (2016) in which the district judge states that stopping a vehicle for a short period of time, for example to unload or allow passengers to exit the vehicle does not constitute as ‘parking’ (see point 20). This case is relevant as the judge accepted that a vehicle stationary for a short period of time was not in fact ‘parked’, and therefore not subject to a parking charge.

4. As a result of this claim, the defendant visited the carpark in question. It is obvious that signage is totally inadequate.

The sign at the entrance states 2 hours free for pub customers, and only a small sign attached at height to a post in front of the offending bay gives any indication that it is not part of the pub carpark. The bays are directly opposite the pub carpark bays, and there is no clear indication that they belong to another company. The defendant took photographs and video of the signage in the carpark (Appendix 1). See also Google maps image showing carpark layout. (Appendix 2).

The signs are inadequate as the print is too small for any driver to read and so no contract can be formed. Appendix 4 shows the sign from the Beavis vs Parking Eye claim, an example of a sign where the charge is clear, and not hidden in the small print.

5. The claimant’s solicitors have failed to properly respond to my request made on 11th October 2017 (appendix 3) by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately (I received a letter advising they were not required to provide any further information). This ‘contract’ has subsequently been provided as part of the Claimant’s court bundle.

6. The claimant has issued the parking charge notice on the basis of ‘not displaying a valid permit’. As the only photograph of the vehicle was taken from the rear, the defendant fails to see how the claimant’s solicitor is pursuing the case on the basis of absolutely NO evidence of the contravention.

BTW that was a very good WS and evidence, and you won - WELL DONE!

:T

Ezisola

geordie777 wrote: »

but she said only lawyers can claim for time spent on preparing a case.

Can anyone advise if there is truth in this? It seems some judges allow it while others don't, would be good to get a definitive answer.

beamerguy

Ezisola wrote: »

Can anyone advise if there is truth in this? It seems some judges allow it while others don't, would be good to get a definitive answer.

Well, it's only a small claims court and judges have different opinions but as a rule of thumb, £90 costs seems average. Even lawyers would struggle to get their full costs which could run into £hundreds, if not more.

There was a case where Parking Eye took a barrister to court, the barrister won with £1000 costs but ..... a barrister is higher in ranking than a county court judge so you can work that out for yourself

The_Deep

Mr Davey, also a barrister, cost UKPC a bit.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

bargepole

Ezisola wrote: »

Can anyone advise if there is truth in this? It seems some judges allow it while others don't, would be good to get a definitive answer.

The Small Claims track has limited costs rules, and the normal award is for witness costs for attending court on the day. These are: Loss of earnings/leave, capped at £95; return mileage home to court at 45p per mile; and parking near the court.

The Judge has discretion, under CPR 27.14(2)(g), to award further costs if it is determined that the losing party has demonstrated unreasonable behaviour.

Contrary to what many posters on this forum believe, bringing a case which turns out to be utterly hopeless, does not cross the threshold of unreasonable behaviour. A serious breach or failure to comply with Court directions, eg filing a WS very late, or not at all, may qualify.

If such a finding is made, the winning party can then be awarded further costs for printing, postage and stationery, as well as a reasonable estimate of the number of hours spent preparing their case. The Litigant In Person rate is set at £19 per hour, but it's worth applying, under CPR 46.5, for two thirds of the rate that a solicitor would have charged. So, for example, in my area the average solicitor rate is £195 per hour, so 2/3 of that would be £130.