Help with IAS Appeals process

beamerguy

shawon007 wrote: »

Claimant claims £100 for PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms, together with statutory interest of £16 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts act 1984 at 8% per annum continuing at 4p per day."

My defence is based on the fact that due inadequate signage, there was no contract. Is this OK?

Gladstones are at their rubbish again, the courts have told them they cannot add on the fake £60.
The problem Gladstones has is that they believe in their own rubbish, that being the IPC code of practice where it says .. "there is an opportunity to add further charges up to £60" ?

We all know as a motorist, and that includes the judge, that the IPC CoP is NOT relevant to the motorist, it only applies to the IPC members who pay a subscription fee to belong to the ATA

The £60 fake is NOT pursuant to POFA2012 and the supreme court ruling and it is the IPC code of practice that encourages it's member to break the law

Therefore, apart from the signage etc, ABUSE OF PROCESS must be highlighted and as coupon-mad has already written a defence on this for you to use ....... please do so

ABUSE OF PROCESS .... POST # 14 by coupon-mad
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

shawon007

Point 2 of the defence demonstrates that this is an abuse of process by the claimant:

2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60.00, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process.

This is further supported by many county court Judges striking out cases in recent months without a hearing due solely to adding 'damages' that the claimant cannot justify.

In claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the county court at Southampton, struck out a overtly inflated (over £100) parking firm claim without hearing for that reason.

In claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor struck out the claim as an abuse of process.

DJ Grand stated: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”,

According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs f the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

----

I think this is sufficient for a judge to review the cases quoted and throw out the case. Do you agree?

Redx

Not necessarily , what a judge decides to do is up to them and varies from court to court , some judges get it and will , others don't , never assume

Now add the rest of the defence , which is no landowner authority , plus rebut the POC as well as we told you earlier , query everything and accept nothing

beamerguy

I think this is sufficient for a judge to review the cases quoted and throw out the case. Do you agree?

NO ..... never assume that the judge will have the time or want to go searching.
To add coupon-mad's text is easy for you to do and it could really mean win or lose ...... assuming you want to win that is ?

shawon007

Oh I forgot to mention - Gladstones sent another Letter Before Claim a month or so ago for the other parking ticket. If I get another court claim do I start a new thread or continue this one?

beamerguy

shawon007 wrote: »

Oh I forgot to mention - Gladstones sent another Letter Before Claim a month or so ago for the other parking ticket. If I get another court claim do I start a new thread or continue this one?

Keep everything on this thread. Any further Gladstones claim, will be much the same ..... adding a fake £60

shawon007

I have read coupon-mads post 14 but where is bargepoles' defence that is being referenced? Should I cope and add it to my defence?

Redx

2 bargepole defences are linked in post #2 of her thread and gave been for years , start with his concise defence , adapting yours accordingly

shawon007

Redx wrote: »

2 bargepole defences are linked in post #2 of her thread and gave been for years , start with his concise defence , adapting yours accordingly

Am I being daft here?? Post 2 is by "the deep" stating someone should bring this to the attention of the SRA....

KeithP

Post #2 of the NEWBIES thread contains seventeen example Defences. Two of them are written by bargepole.