Driver observed leaving site whilst vehicle remained parked on premises

beamerguy

Amount claimed £128


What is the original charge ????

Redx

Smaru wrote: »

But in a column adjacent they have this:

Amount claimed 128.28
Court Fee 25
Legal Rep cost 50
Total amount 203.28

If you have anything further to add after seeing the brakdown of charges,I will be grateful to hear about it so that I can include in my defence .Thanks again.

those details ARE the breakdown of charges I asked about , in order to dissect them to see how the total of £203.28 is made up

£128.28 does not make sense, so it appears they have not included how that spurious figure is made up, presumably an original parking charge plus something else

so as beamerguy says, what was the original charge on the pcn or NTK, or signage ?

hint , its either £100 , or less , perhaps between £70 and £100 , certainly not more than £100 as they never are more than that figure

perhaps they added debt collector charges onto an original NTK figure ?

The_Deep

Why not ask the SRA

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

if they are satisfied that these charges are lawful.

Smaru

The claim form only has this, Beamerguy :
Amount claimed 128.28
Court Fee 25
Legal Rep cost 50
Total amount 203.28
I have detailed other amounts from various letters below :


The Notice to Keeper letter has this (June,2018):

Charge payable: 70 .00



The Final Demand from TPS has this (July,2018):
Charge Now Payable : 90.00 (they have not provided any break up )


Then BW Legal took over (Aug 2018) and send this:

Balance due 124.00 ( 70 PCN charges and 54 initial legal costs )


Then Letter of Claim from BWL in Sept 2018
Principal Debt +Initial Legal costs: 124.00
Estimated Interest3,28
Estimated Court Fees 25.00
Estimated Solicitor cost: 50
Estimated Total 202.08


Then the Claim form Novemebr ,2018

Amount claimed 128.28
Court Fee 25
Legal Rep cost 50
Total amount 203.28
These are all the figures from the various letters. But claim form shows no breakdown.

Thank you for your time, beamerguy and RedX

Redx

so its double recovery like we thought

if you lost they are entitled to the £70 plus court costs, possibly some other fees

so your defence will need mention of this by reading other defences and how to object to the additional sums being claimed on top of the initial £70 plus court fees , ie:- they seem to have added in 2 lots of legal costs

this will also be in your WS and skeleton argument later down the line , if it gets that far

beamerguy

What I don't understand is the ticket charge is £90 and BWL state £70 ?

Well they cannot change that now.

The £54 for legal costs is fake and yes they are yet again trying for double recovery

They already state "solicitors cost" of £50

This is double recovery and not allowed.

Normally this fake fee is £60 as follows ...

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

You must refer to the judge as to the validity of double recovery in his/her court

Smaru

Thank you Redx and beamerguy.

What I don't understand is the ticket charge is £90 and BWL state £70 ?

@beamerguy,in their first letter ,TPS charged 70; in their subsequent letter it was quoted as 90 .BWlegal is asking for 90..I am not sure about why:-(
@Redx; you say' if you' lost-do you think it is likely?
I am going to try my very best for 'them' to lose..with help of all the resources on this forum:cool:
Will write my defence and post it here soon.

Redx

nobody on here has any idea about the chances of winning or losing , even if you hired a lawyer its still down to the evidence, the witness statements and the judge on the day (Judge Bingo)

BEAVIS thought he would win and had ample help, he lost , 3 times, in 3 different courts

Smaru

Dear forum memebrs:
Below is my defence.I also provide details about the claim so that you have all information on the same post. Looking forward to feedback and suggestions from expereinced members .

Claimant:
Total Parking Solutions
Kettring
Address for sending documents and payments
BW Legal
Leeds

The Particulars of the Claim:
The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £ 203.28 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice for a parking contravention which occured on (date) in the car park at (location) in relation to a (details of make and registration vehicle) .The Defendant was allowed 28 dyas from the PCN issue Date to pay,but failed to do so.Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability,The Claim also includes Stautory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum ( a daily rate of 4.28 from date XXX to date XXX) being an amount of £ 4.28.The claimant also claims contractual costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.
The claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.

Signed (Name).................
(Clamimant's Legal representative



The Defence


[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Total Parking Solutions (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The facts are that the vehicle with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]parked at [location][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3. The Particulars of Claim does not state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. Further,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]the particulars of claim are very vague and lack suitable information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. They fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as nothing is mentioned which specifies how the parking terms were breached. These assumptions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and therefore there is no liability towards the Defendant.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5. The claimant’s Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as ‘the driver was observed leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises’. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing the claimant’s site boundary or the defendant actually leaving the site, despite the defendant requesting this at the Letter of Claim stage.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]British Parking Association (BPA)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]20.5a. When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident, which you claim, was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate with video or photographic evidence that the occupant(s) of the vehicle crossed a clearly defined boundary of the premises.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
6. The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises. The Parking bays are spread over two levels with each storey accessible from two separate entrances . The entrance/exit to the lower level is from the south, whilst the entrance/exit to the upper level is from the north. The store itself is accessible from both storeys. The access road to the car park on the top storey also has a long, sloping, winding pedestrian walkway that runs parallel it. This long walkway overlooks the garden centre of the store situated on the lower storey along its whole stretch. It is quite common for customers to use this pedestrian walkway as a ‘viewing gallery ’to view large items stacked on high shelves that cannot be seen clearly from the garden centre at eye level . The signage in the car park does not clearly define the boundary of the premises.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6a. The burden of proof shifts to Total Parking Solutions to prove otherwise, and to explain why their attendant watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary and yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver or even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises, or confirm if they had used other entrances to the site.
6b. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?’ The Defendant contends that Total Parking Solutions have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), 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, which in this case is £70. The Claimant includes an additional £54 in this claim, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is apparent that apart from court fees incurred, any added legal fees/costs are simply made up by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7a. The claim further includes a sum of £50 described as “Legal Representatives Costs” which are again an attempt by the Claimant at a double recovery as there is no extra work involved or any other services used by them to justify this cost incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by showing time sheets or otherwise to justify these overstated costs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. If a parking breach did occur as alleged by the Claimant then this would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any damages resulting from the trespass. The Claimant is put to strict proof that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Total Parking Solutions and that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land and necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces parking charge notices pursuing payment by means of litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8a. A Parking Charge cannot be disguised as a fee or a sum in damages owed to a firm which does not own the land but allows cars to trespass upon it. The decision of the supreme court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Consequently, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts contained in this defence are true.[/FONT]


XXXX

XXX 2018

beamerguy

Smaru

Please review what you are saying

Their claim should be

£70 for the ticket
£25 court fee
£50 legal costs
small amount of interest £4.28

Anything above that is an attempt for double recovery

Now take into account what their claim says ....

"The claimant also claims contractual costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions."

This can only mean the T&C's on the signs.

Does the sign clearly show contractual costs and if so, what amount does it say. Maybe this is buried in small font letters
not really visible

This key for claiming double recovery