Parking Eye Fine

MistyZ

sweetgem wrote: »

Yes I didn’t see any signs

Then that will do, nice and simple.

sweetgem

MistyZ wrote: »

Then that will do, nice and simple.

I Cant seem to send you a message Misty it says your inbox is full lol

Umkomaas

Every regular keeps their inbox full, otherwise we are bombarded by posters who want (and often demand) personal attention for their case.

sweetgem

Umkomaas wrote: »

Every regular keeps their inbox full, otherwise we are bombarded by posters who want (and often demand) personal attention for their case.

I am not demanding any personal attention Misty has been offering invaluable help just like yourselves

sweetgem

I put in a costs estimate of about £300. it took me longer than 10 hours to do though.

DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS



(a) Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 02/01/2020 - £95.00

Return mileage from home address to Court (3 miles at £0.45p) - £1.35

Parking near Court - £5.00



Sub-total - £101.35


==================

(b) Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

There is no reasonable justification or lawful explanation for the Claimant's conduct, which constitutes unwarranted harassment; such conduct to be explained at the hearing.

The following additional costs are sought on the indemnity basis for the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

The Defendant avers that such costs must apply, given the facts, primarily in order to compensate for the time taken in handling this meritless and wholly vexatiously pleaded court claim, and secondly to send a message to this legally-represented serial litigant that their conduct in the instant case is an abuse of process:

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (10 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) - £190.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £15.00

Sub-total - £205.00


==================


(a) + (b) = £ 306.35 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

sweetgem

changed part 13 slightly is this ok

13. Upon entering the reception area there was a lack of prominence and transparency and no signs to remind a visitor or direct them to input their registration into a keypad/terminal. The Defendant was never made aware of any new parking restrictions by the Hotel staff and nor were they made aware that (as I have found out too late) apparently there is a non-prominent system to input vehicle registration numbers (VRNs) into a hidden hotel lobby terminal.

1505grandad

An observation:-

The name of the claimant is clearly stated on the Court docs in front of you - it could well be that if the Judge has to use "Balance of Probabilities" to decide the case perhaps s/he will think that if you cannot put the claimant's name correctly on the D may be the keypad etc were clear but you ignored them.

Just my take on the situation - you did actually use the correct form of the claimant's name in a previous draft D many posts ago.

sweetgem

1505grandad wrote: »

An observation:-

The name of the claimant is clearly stated on the Court docs in front of you - it could well be that if the Judge has to use "Balance of Probabilities" to decide the case perhaps s/he will think that if you cannot put the claimant's name correctly on the D may be the keypad etc were clear but you ignored them.

Just my take on the situation - you did actually use the correct form of the claimant's name in a previous draft D many posts ago.

Sorry I am being a bit thick, I don't quite understand, can you elaborate.

Are you suggesting I omit the name 'Claimant' and replace it with the actual parking company name?

sweetgem

Shall I just post it now?

1505grandad

There is no space between ParkingEye is all I was getting at - assuming that is how the Court docs state the claimant's name.