Claim Form - what next

Coupon-mad

What are the options now, are we simply better of settling the amount, is its still possible to do so? If we have to attend a hearing it will cost me more than the fine in the loss of a days works.

Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread which tells you what happens when.

A hearing is normally a half day off work and you can claim £95 plus travel and parking costs. We see wins reported 99% of the time, since 2017.

Or you could elect to ask the court to hear the case on the papers in your absence, if this will really cost you to attend. Your papers (defence and Witness Statement and evidence) will need to be spot on, as you will not be there to counter the C's arguments.

Why would you settle and pay a silly amount, when even if you lose, you'd pay not more than £175 - £200, as long as you also attack their added 'costs' that don't exist.

The latest letter was fully expected, why do you think the options have now changed? A defence doesn't make them run away this early!

Claimmyass

As ever i have left this to the last minute.
I have the Directions Questionnaire to complete.
Do i have to post back to the claims office, can i email
Do i need to send a copy to the claimants solicitor
If i do not wish to attend the hearing, do i request this once the hearing date has been set?

KeithP

Send the completed DQ to the same email address, and in the same manner, that you sent your Defence.

You need to send a copy to the Claimant - address on the Claim Form.

You can decide later whether or not you wish to attend any hearing.

Claimmyass

Thanks all for your assistance.

Claimmyass

Hi
Now have a court date set and have elected not to attend and will provide a statement for the court. Coupon-mad has said " Your papers (defence and Witness Statement and evidence) will need to be spot on, as you will not be there to counter the C's arguments"

Can anyone offer any guidance, specifically statement attacking the added costs that don't exist.

As ever thanks for any help provided.

Coupon-mad

Simply look at the example WS in the NEWBIES thread and copy & adapt the style.

Claimmyass

Here goes the first attempt. I would like to make more of the additional charges being added and trying to ensure the court does minimise costs should the find in favour of the claimant. So any pointers always appreciated.

I am acting on behalf of XXX XXXXX Ltd the owner of the Vehicle, although it is unclear who the driver was at the time. No PCN was attached to the windscreen and therefore when the PCN was received by post some weeks later it was hard to determine who the driver was this day. At the time several people were backwards and forwards to the vicinity as we were in the process of opening a shop. Despite several requests we have been supplied no photo evidence of the PCN on the vehicle.
From the photo evidence it would seem the vehicle was parked on this date and this isn’t disputed. Whet we are taking issue with is the following: -
1.1 The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road, the Vehicle was parked directly behind a shop we were completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

1.2 There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.

1.3 The only sign was attached to perimeter fencing enclosing a building. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking where my vehicle was located. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping' and certainly nothing was seen about permits or how to obtain one, or the charge itself.

1.4 The PCN was NOT placed on the windscreen of the car, no received photos show a PCN on the Vehicle despite requests.
1.5 Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
1.6 Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
2.1 It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.