Additional Charges struck out-abuse of process

Castle

UKCPM Ltd v Esplande Ltd (Retweet from 5th December)
Claim struck out, (without a hearing), as an abuse of process as POFA2012 doesn't allow additional charges.
I didn't know Manchester county court had a court on the Isle of Wight!

(Thanks to No To Mob and Barry Beavis)

https://twitter.com/NoToMob

DammitChloe

Castle wrote: »

UKCPM Ltd v Esplande Ltd (Retweet from 5th December)
Claim struck out, (without a hearing), as an abuse of process as POFA2012 doesn't allow additional charges.
I didn't know Manchester county court had a court on the Isle of Wight!

(Thanks to No To Mob and Barry Beavis)

https://twitter.com/NoToMob

I'm currently at DQ stage against BWL. Does anyone know the details of this case, and would it be appropriate to draw the judge's attention to it? I was thinking of writing a covering letter and sending the photo that was posted by Beavis to the CCBC with the DQ. I'd be grateful if the legal brains on here could advise. Thanks in advance!

Castle

DammitChloe wrote: »

I'm currently at DQ stage against BWL. Does anyone know the details of this case, and would it be appropriate to draw the judge's attention to it? I was thinking of writing a covering letter and sending the photo that was posted by Beavis to the CCBC with the DQ. I'd be grateful if the legal brains on here could advise. Thanks in advance!

At the DQ stage it's too late, it should be mentioned in the defence. (Although you could make an application for a strike out, but that would require a £100 fee).

DammitChloe

Sorry, should have said I already included the following paragraphs in the defence (with a bit of help from the regulars on here!). This was sent before the other case was heard. Does that make any difference?

The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.

The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.