Norwich Traffic Control make claim via Northampton County Court against me... HELP!

beamerguy

elgordo9 wrote: »

I have a couple of points to raise and argue against, but I am now hesitant to post them on here as I am aware that BW Legal and NTC are likely to be reading this thread. Would anyone be willing to discuss via private messaging?

https://imgur.com/a/nfFmRVI

Most regulars will not respond to PM's
Be very wary of any PM from someone with less than 1000 posts.

Don't worry about BWL or NTC, all the scammers read this forum and generally to learn and understand which is the next case they will lose

elgordo9

Hi All,

I still haven't received my directions questionnaire from the court, and yet BW Legal sent me notice on 31st October that they had apparently submitted theirs. The issue date on the claim form was 25th September and I submitted my defence on 24th October. The latest update on MCOL still says that my defence was submitted on 24th October. Would it say here if they Directions questionnaire has been issued?

Thanks everyone, I apologise if this is explained elsewhere, I promise I have had a search around the forum to try and find the answer!

elgordo9

elgordo9 wrote: »

Hi All,

I still haven't received my directions questionnaire from the court, and yet BW Legal sent me notice on 31st October that they had apparently submitted theirs. The issue date on the claim form was 25th September and I submitted my defence on 24th October. The latest update on MCOL still says that my defence was submitted on 24th October. Would it say here if they Directions questionnaire has been issued?

Thanks everyone, I apologise if this is explained elsewhere, I promise I have had a search around the forum to try and find the answer!

Just spoken to the county court - BW Legal DID NOT respond via the courts within the time frame in which they should have and as a result the case has been stayed.

Castle

elgordo9 wrote: »

Just spoken to the county court - BW Legal DID NOT respond via the courts within the time frame in which they should have and as a result the case has been stayed.

Good news; it will cost them £100 to lift the stay and that's not recoverable. (Hopefully the court will confirm the stay in writing shortly).

beamerguy

elgordo9 wrote: »

Just spoken to the county court - BW Legal DID NOT respond via the courts within the time frame in which they should have and as a result the case has been stayed.

These people are not real solicitors, totally unprofessional

One of the real solicitors on here will be along to advise

elgordo9

Hi All,

In addition the first claim that BW Legal made against me, one that ended with the case being stayed on 27th November 2018 due to them not submitting their directions questionnaire (despite informing me they had), they have since made three more claims. All Letter Before Claim were sent on 7th December 2018.

Two of the three claims were issued on 27th March 2019, and the third on 12th July 2019. I have acknowledged and submitted a defence for all three claims, whilst highlighting the abuse of process in submitting three separate claims, and now I have one date for which all three claims will be heard - 6th December 2019.

I am currently at the stage whereby I am preparing my witness statement. I realise I've left this late, however I have had a lot going on elsewhere and therefore I can only apologise.

It's at this stage where I am less able to grasp an understanding of what I need to say, despite having done an extensive amount of reading on this forum, however this is what I have come up with so far.

Would someone be kind enough to offer some advice and have a read of my witness statement?

Am I wasting my time in demonstrating how they have previously lied about the address they have served Notice to Keepers at, or is this a worthwhile endeavour?

Here is the witness statement so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXX(Defendant)

Witness Statement of XXXXXXXX, Defendant
I am XXXXXX, of XXXXXX. I am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, however there is no evidence of the driver and as these events are from over 18 months ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

2. I deny being the driver at the time of the supposed event(s), and therefore put Norwich Traffic Control to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves. At the time in 2018, the insurance covered more than one family member, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

3. I invite the court to take note that the Claimant issued three claims against me, numbers XXXXXX, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX. All claims have substantially identical particulars, and all ‘Letter Before Claim’s’ were sent on 7th December 2018. This constitutes an abuse of process, making me potentially liable for multiple instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees (as well as the unrecoverable £60 x2 attempt at double recovery that is a feature of BW Legal claims). This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court was invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and I trust that the Judge will apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

3.2 In a recent case, District Judge Taylor dismissed a case from BW Legal that included a false amount of £60 (Claim number F0DP201T in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019). It was ordered that the claim was struck out as an abuse of process. Accordingly, I invite the Judge in this instance to read this case and consider the same course of action.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not state if I am pursued as the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. It can only be deduced that I am being pursued as the registered keeper. In this case, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

4.1. It is submitted that the claimant has not provided adequate notice of charge and/or issued Notice to Keeper letters in time, and that any evidence to the contrary is likely fabricated by the claimant ad-hoc. The claimant has already established that it does not act in good faith and purports falsehoods to the defendant regarding the issuing or prescribing of important documents. With reference to claim number XXXXXX, again another claim with identical particulars (XX1) the defendant submitted his defence on 24th October 2018 (XX). The claimant informed the defendant 31st October that they had submitted their Directions Questionnaire and intended to continue with the claim (XX3), however this transpired to be a falsehood and subsequently the case was stayed on 27th November 2018. Despite this, BW Legal issued further letters on 17th December 2018 (XX4) and 16th January 2019 (XX5) making demands for an amount that was not owed, suggesting that their instructions were still to proceed to obtain a judgement at the small claims hearing.

4.2. The claimant and their legal team, BW Legal, claimed that in this claim “the Notice to Keeper, subsequent letters and all pre-action correspondence was sent to the same address on the claim form”. The claim form states an address that the defendant had not yet moved into or was even aware of at the time that the notice to keeper should have and purportedly would have been issued. The alleged contravention date in this claim was 15/04/2017. Under POFA2012 Schedule 4, the Notice to Keeper should have been sent with the period of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. The defendant moved into the address that the claimant unequivocally states that the Notice of Keeper was sent to on 05/05/2018 (XX6), which was 386 days after the alleged contravention date. Evidently, the Notice to Keeper was not sent in the manner in which the claimant has stated.

4.2.1 For the claimant to have issued a Notice to Keeper to the correct address within the time frame specified under POFA Schedule 4, the claimant should have used a V888/3 form to access the keepers address. The defendant has issued a Subject Access Request to the claimant in order to obtain the records of these requests. The claimant has not provided these records but has stated that “requests are made by a third party company who do not see the data which gets sent directly to the system and added to the charge” (XX7). It is suggested by the defendant that two of the three (XXXXXX and XXXXXX) Notice to Keepers were sent (allegedly on 25/05/2018, if at all) to the wrong address due to the claimants assumption that the defendant resided at an address (XXXXXX, XXXXX) for which he was previously associated at. It is of note that the defendant’s tenancy at this address ended on 8th January 2018 (XX8).

4.2.2 The claimant has as recently as 25th September 2019 sent a ‘final notice’ (XX9) to yet another address that the defendant is no longer associated with. This further demonstrates a level of incompetence or insincerity in following the appropriate protocol.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle (XX9) and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The signage in this claim is significantly different to that of the Beavis case (XX10), a case in which the Claimant is likely to reply upon.

6. I have not yet received a Witness Statement from BW Legal and therefore I am unable to defend against any evidence they may or may not produce.

I believe the facts contained in this statement are true.

Name: XXXXXXXX

Signature:

Date: 19/11/2019

Coupon-mad

now I have one date for which all three claims will be heard - 6th December 2019.

I am currently at the stage whereby I am preparing my witness statement.

Good, and well done for limiting costs and time by getting them consolidated.

Am I wasting my time in demonstrating how they have previously lied about the address they have served Notice to Keepers at, or is this a worthwhile endeavour?

I would definitely show evidence of that, without using the word 'lied'! Something like 'an untruth, tainting the entire claim and breaching the service requirements for Notice to Keepers, as set out in the POFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be)' would be a phrase to use.

For these points you will need evidence. Your first exhibits should be the POFA Schedule 4 with 4(5) and 4(6) highlighted - and paras 8 and 9 in your case, too) and the Beavis case paras I cited in Southampton, and the CRA 2015 schedule 2 'the grey list' with paras 6, 10 and 14 highlighted (as I did):

3.2 In a recent case, District Judge Taylor dismissed a case from BW Legal that included a false amount of £60 (Claim number F0DP201T in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019). It was ordered that the claim was struck out as an abuse of process. Accordingly, I invite the Judge in this instance to read this case and consider the same course of action.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not state if I am pursued as the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. It can only be deduced that I am being pursued as the registered keeper. In this case, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

You can use my words about the fake added £60 as a Supplementary WS, like in BlueNine's thread. Makes it tidier and more concise for the Judge to follow at the hearing, IMHO, to separate the argument against the £60, from the core WS about the £100 charge.

elgordo9

Thanks CM, you are really are a gem. Having spent much of the last few days reading through your posts and having seen how often you are active on this forum, I have nothing but admiration and gratitude towards you. I think I have found the wording you were referring to, and I have added that into my witness statement (see below). Is everything okay? I've also ensure that I avoided the use of the word lie :rotfl:

I'm currently compiling a list of documents that I need to print out, and/or make copies of, and once I have done that I may drop the witness statement off with the court. Is that acceptable? BW Legal will be receiving an emailed version given that 14 days before the hearing is tomorrow.

One more question, where do I stand with a skeleton argument? Do I need that in addition to this or can I rely on my WS?

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No(s): XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (Defendant)

Witness Statement of Mr. XXXXXXX XXX, Defendant

I am XXXXXXX XXXX, of XXXXXXX. I am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

I will say as follows.

1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

2. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as these events are from over 18 months ago, it is impossible to expect me to recall who might have been driving. I do however deny being the driver at the time of the supposed event(s), and therefore put Norwich Traffic Control to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and myself. At the time in 2018, the insurance covered more than one family member, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

3. I have attached a copy of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Action 2012 which relates to the recovery of unpaid parking charges as Exhibit A and have highlighted the following points:
a. Page 2 – Paragraph 2.2 and 2.3
“2 (2) The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by –
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which –
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”
b. Page 3 – Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2a
“4 (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if –
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and”
c. Page 4 – Paragraph 6.1b ‘Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4’
“6 (1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) –
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
d. Page 6 – Paragraph 9.1, 9.2a, 9.2e and 9.7.
“9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purpose of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must –
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
“(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper –
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor
of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;”
“(7) When this notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.”

4. I have attached a copy of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which relates to consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair as Exhibit B and have highlighted the following points:
a. Page 1 – Paragraph 6
“6 A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”
b. Page 2 – Paragraph 10
“10 A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”
c. Page 2 – Paragraph 14
“14 A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound”

5. I have attached a copy of pages 87 and 88 of the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance for the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as Exhibit C and have highlighted the following points:
a. Section 5.14.3, 5.14.4 and 5.14.5
“5.14.3 Other kinds of penal provisions which may be unfair are clauses saying that the business can:
- claim all its costs and expenses, not just its net costs resulting directly from the breach;
- claim both its costs and its loss of profit where this would lead to being compensated twice over for the same loss; and
- claim its legal costs on an 'indemnity' basis, that is all costs, not just costs reasonably incurred. The words ‘indemnity’ and 'indemnify' are also objectionable as legal jargon – see the section on transparency in part 2 of the guidance.
The fairness of any term is assessed having regard to the other terms of the contract, and even if not excessive when considered separately, may be unfair if it could operate together with another term or terms so as to lead to the trader being compensated twice for the same loss.
5.14.4 Potentially penal terms.
A disproportionate financial sanction involving requirement to pay a fixed or minimum sum, in all circumstances, will be open to challenge if the sum could be too high in some cases.
5.14.5 Assessment of unfairness focuses on the effect terms could have, not just the purposes they are intended to serve. Thus a clause may be unfair if it allows the trader excessive discretion to decide the level of a financial sanction, or if it could have that effect through being vague, or unclear, or misleading about what consumers will be required to pay in the event of default. Consumers rarely know about technical issues such as ‘mitigation’ of loss (see below), and so can easily be misled into thinking that the trader can claim more than is really the case.”

6. I invite the court to take note that the Claimant issued three claims against me, numbers XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX. All claims have substantially identical particulars, and all ‘Letter Before Claim’s’ were sent on the same date - 7th December 2018. This constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for multiple instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees. This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court was invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, which thankfully has been accepted. Accordingly, I trust that the Judge will apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

7. The particulars of claim(s) include 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. 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 and is an attempt at double recovery.

8. The added charge in the particulars of claim(s) also fail paragraphs 6, 10 and 14 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a test of fairness must be considered by the court. Section 5.14.3 of the Guidance to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 suggests that trying to claim all costs and expenses may be penal and unfair.

9. At the hearing for BW Legal's N244 application to appeal against two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against Britannia Parking for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge, the Defendants successfully argued on all three counts including a citation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court on 11 November 2019, where he agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), due to Schedule 4 Paragraphs 5 and 6. (Attached and highlighted)
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287. (Attached and highlighted)
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

10. Further, it was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14* and due to the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply Schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before. The Claimants were refused their request to appeal - given that the £160 claim in its entirety, was adjudged to have been 'tainted' by breaches of two statute laws and going behind a Supreme Court ruling - and both Defendants were awarded their costs. (Attached and highlighted)

11. The Particulars of Claim do not state if I am pursued as the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. It can only be deduced that I am being pursued as the registered keeper. In this case, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

12. It is submitted that the claimant has not provided adequate notice of charge and/or issued Notice to Keeper letters in time, and that any evidence to the contrary is likely fabricated by the claimant ad-hoc. The claimant has already established that it does not act in good faith and purports falsehoods to the defendant regarding the issuing or prescribing of important documents. This is with reference to claim number XXXXXXXX, again another claim with identical particulars. To provide background, the Defendant submitted his defence on 24th October 2018. The Claimant informed the Defendant 31st October 2018 that they had submitted their Directions Questionnaire and intended to continue with the claim. However, this transpired to be a falsehood and subsequently the case was stayed on 27th November 2018. Despite the staying of the case being known, or should have been known to BW Legal, they continued to issue letters on 17th December 2018 and 16th January 2019 to demands for an amount that was not owed, under the guise that their instructions were still to proceed to obtain a judgement at the small claims hearing, and the assumption that the Defendant would not have been aware that the case had been stayed.
Evidence of these points are displayed under Exhibit C.

13. A further example of an untruths that taint the entire claim and what’s more breaches the service requirements for Notice to Keepers, as set out in the POFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be), can be demonstrated again in relation to claim XXXXXXXX. BW Legal, claimed that in this instance “the Notice to Keeper, subsequent letters and all pre-action correspondence was sent to the same address on the claim form” (Attached and highlighted).
The claim form states an address that the defendant had not yet moved into or was even aware of at the time that the notice to keeper should have and purportedly would have been issued. The alleged contravention date in this claim was 15/04/2017. Under POFA2012 Schedule 4, the Notice to Keeper should have been sent with the period of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. The defendant moved into the address that the claimant unequivocally states that the Notice of Keeper was sent to on 05/05/2018, which was 386 days after the alleged contravention date. This untruth taints the entire claim and breaches the service requirements for Notice to Keepers, as set out in the POFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be).
Evidence of this point is displayed in Exhibit D.

14. For the claimant to have issued a Notice to Keeper to the correct address for the claims concerned within this hearing, within the time frame specified under POFA Schedule 4, the claimant should have used a V888/3 form to access the keepers address. By way of enquiring if the Claimant had fulfilled their responsibility to ensure that the Notice to Keeper was filed at the correct address, the Defendant issued a Subject Access Request to the claimant in order to obtain the records of these requests. The claimant has not provided these records and has stated that “requests are made by a third party company who do not see the data which gets sent directly to the system and added to the charge” (Attached and highlighted). It is suggested by the defendant that two of the three (XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX) Notice to Keepers were sent (allegedly on 25/05/2018, if at all) to the wrong address due to the claimants assumption that the defendant resided at an address (XXXXXXX) for which he was previously associated at. It is of note that the defendant’s tenancy at this address ended on 8th January 2018 (Highlighted and attached).
Evidence of this point is displayed in Exhibit E.

15. The claimant has as recently as 25th September 2019 sent a ‘final notice’ to yet another address that the defendant is no longer associated with. This further demonstrates a level of incompetence or insincerity in following the appropriate protocol. See Exhibit F.

16. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily (Claimants Witness Statement, p.14). It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The signage in this claim is significantly different to that of the Beavis case (Exhibit G), a case in which the Claimant is likely to reply upon.

17. Within the Claimants Witness Statement, none of the photos of the vehicle in question picture the vehicle in relation to any of the signage presented. This further demonstrates that there was not sufficient and adequate signage that was capable of creating a legally binding contract.

18. In response to paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s witness statement, it is apparent that the agreement presented by the Claimant between the Claimant and the NUA Car Park is dated 26th March 2019, and yet the start date is retrospectively added as 1st August 2017. This does not demonstrate that an agreement was in place at the time the alleged breach of contract is said to occur. Further, the NUA is a tenant of the building concerned, not the landowner. Thus, the Claimant has not satisfied point 6 of the Defence, whereby they are “put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.”

19. In response to paragraph 78 of the Claimant’s witness statement, it is suggested that they will rely on the Court of Appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015]. This is irrelevant to the claim(s) to be heard on 6th December 2019 due to the fact that it relates to a written contract and monies that had actually been paid out, rather than an invoice from a Private Parking Company regarding an apparent implied contract with the driver (and not the keeper) of the vehicle in question.

20. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim as being without merit, and further, in the event that the Claimant should discontinue this Claim, to maintain the listed hearing date of 6th December as a costs hearing, in order that I can apply for a Costs Order against the Claimant.

I believe the facts contained in this statement are true.

elgordo9

Hi All,

I lost in court today. Judge Reeve of Norwich saw no issue with the added £60 despite my references to the consumer rights act etc.

Three parking invoices were heard at once, including one that didn't have any photos of the signage in relation to the car. On the balance of probability the judge was satisfied that there was signage.

The only win I had was that only one set of issue fees and one £60 should be issued on the basis that they should have put all three claims together in the first instance.

I guess I was just one of the unlucky ones. Should I pay up or consider appeal?

Coupon-mad

Consider Appeal. Costs £120. Act QUICKLY.

Failure to properly consider the CRA is an ''error in law'' and there is no discretion to allow unfair terms to add £60 that obviously fall at the CRA hurdles.

I say ''obviously'' because that word is used in the CRA Guidance to that law!

This is the same court as NorfolkBoi who I've asked to reply to you, as they ran out of time to appeal but this court NEEDS an appeal to set the Judges right on the Consumer Rights Act Schedule 2, para 6, 10 and 14.

This is also possibly arguable as part of the appeal:

Three parking invoices were heard at once, including one that didn't have any photos of the signage in relation to the car.

Can't see how the Judge can conclude that signs 'probably' existed, without evidence on the material date, and pics of the car with a sign are basics required by the Trade Bodies of their members.