Claim form pack arrived for parking fines on private land

simone82

@Coupon-mad, I have no clue what they are doing and I suspect that they are confused themselves! looking back at the paperwork they sent after I requested the SARs, they have included FINAL REMINDER letters with Claim Issue Fees, Judgment costs and warrant issue fees which then amount to a completely different amount.


I will be sure to add this to my WS and will include on my supplementary WS. I will upload a draft WS shortly which I hope you can both kindly look over for me. Thank you

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Write a quick letter to the Judge by name and ask that claim numbers xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx be consolidated.

Use the words by bargepole, EVEN IF you already did. Your Judge has not noticed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76103592#Comment_76103592

That poster went on to win!

Totally agree. Makes no sense.

Have they conflated some of the dates from the second claim, across to this one? Either way, cover it in your WS and say how you are confused, then lead into mentioning your Supplementary WS about parking firms NOT being able to lawfully recover additional costs above a £100 parking charge that already includes those same costs.

Castle

simone82 wrote: »

I am looking at the particulars for the first claim and costs and note the following:


"The driver of the vehicle registration XXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charges on XXXXX (7 DATES IN TOTAL) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXX. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £640 for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £129.72 pursuant to s69 of the County courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.14 per day.


Amount claimed: £769.72
Court fee: £60.00
Legal rep costs: £70.00
Total: £899.72.

£640 divides by £160 four times.

simone82

Thank you, but they are claiming for 7 fines in this particular case!


That's why I'm confused?!…..

Castle wrote: »

£640 divides by £160 four times.

Coupon-mad

Indeed, and Castle will have spotted that too.

The point being, you can twist it to cast aspersions on the POC. Start by telling the Judge you are utterly confused by the Claimant's two claims, then say this:

From my recent online research, I know that parking firms add a spurious and unrecoverable £60 to each £100 PCN, and that 4 x £160 is £640 as per part of the claim form - point to that calculation.

Yet the Claimant has listed a confusing SEVEN different dates and also filed a separate claim, for possibly the same issues (who knows - it is hard to guess?) putting the potential costs at double what they should be in court fees.

This surely makes their POC inadmissible, since it discloses no transparent facts that can lead to a claim in law with any prospects of success. And, being legally represented, the Claimant has no excuse and should not be granted any relief from sanctions, and both claims should be struck out.

Then add bargepole's words about the second claim and consolidation if the court is not minded to strike them both out.

Put all that in a letter to the Judge on Monday and copy in the solicitors (you have to).

simone82

Makes total sense and apologies to Castle!


I am new to all this quick wittedness, I see that Law is such a fascinating world of words and meanings. the last few days have felt like a puzzle that I am trying to crack


Thank you, I will ensure I post that off first thing on Monday morning and will keep you updated!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Indeed, and Castle will have spotted that too.

The point being, you can twist it to cast aspersions on the POC. Start by telling the Judge you are utterly confused by the Claimant's two claims, then say this:


Then add bargepole's words about the second claim and consolidation if the court is not minded to strike them both out.

Put all that in a letter to the Judge on Monday and copy in the solicitors (you have to).

simone82

Evening, how does this sound for the letter to the Judge? Apologies in advance I have never had to send such a letter before...…




IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)


URGENT – Case management of claim numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX – consolidation of hearings request to save wasting and duplicating the parties; time and costs and taking up unnecessary court time


The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, and with substantially identical particulars, both of which I find utterly confusing as the amounts on both claims do not add up and do not make sense.

From my recent online research, I know that parking firms add a spurious and unrecoverable £60 to each £100 PCN. Case XXXXXX has 7 PCN’s (of which 6 of 7 dates are identical) on the Particulars amounting to £899.72, however case XXXXXX has just 4 PCN’s amounting to £841.55 (of which 3 of 4 dates are identical)

This surely makes their Particulars Of Claim inadmissible, since it discloses no transparent facts that can lead to a claim in law with any prospects of success.

It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing or both claims struck out.

Signed


The Defendant

simone82

Also to add on another note, the Particulars on the second claim are, well I was going to say *slightly* different but after reading all the threads today seems as though they are trying to cover their backs with their new wording.....:


"The driver of the vehicle registration XXXX (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the Contract) at Walters Close, on XXXXXX (3 out of 4 dates are the same!!) thus incurring the parking charges (the PCN's). The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN's within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The Claimant claims unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 per PCN, £60.00 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £71.55 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984...….

Coupon-mad

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)


URGENT – For the attention of the Presiding Judge

Case management of claim numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX – consolidation of hearings request to save wasting and duplicating the parties; time and costs and taking up unnecessary court time

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, and with substantially identical particulars, both of which I find utterly confusing as the amounts on both claims do not add up and do not make sense.

It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the defendant potentially liable for double instances of issues fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of Civil Procedure Rules 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the claimant.

Further, the sum claimed in each set of particulars for these two claims, fails to match the number of 'dates of parking' listed. From my recent online research, I know that parking firms add a spurious and unrecoverable £60 to each £100 PCN. Case XXXXXX has 7 PCN’s (of which 6 of 7 dates are identical) on the Particulars amounting to £899.72, however case XXXXXX has just 4 PCN’s amounting to £841.55 (of which 3 of 4 dates are identical).

This surely makes their Particulars Of Claim inadmissible, since it discloses no transparent facts that can lead to a claim in law with any prospects of success.

In sending this letter I am respectfully seeking the Court's Directions, rather than find on the day that the first case is then adjourned when this is raised, and thus wasting everyone's time and that of the court service. It seems to me that, if the claims are not summarily struck out, the hearing listed for one of the claims in March 2020 may need to be vacated and new Directions issued to the parties.

A copy of this letter has been served to the Claimant's solicitors, in the interests of open dealing and in accordance with the CPRs.

Signed


The Defendant

simone82

Thank you, I will send this off first thing this morning


I am working on my WS today. Hopefully I can get this sent off this week. Its my hope that Gladstone's will receive it and see that I mean business!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXX
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)


URGENT – For the attention of the Presiding Judge

Case management of claim numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX – consolidation of hearings request to save wasting and duplicating the parties; time and costs and taking up unnecessary court time

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, and with substantially identical particulars, both of which I find utterly confusing as the amounts on both claims do not add up and do not make sense.

It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the defendant potentially liable for double instances of issues fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of Civil Procedure Rules 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the claimant.

Further, the sum claimed in each set of particulars for these two claims, fails to match the number of 'dates of parking' listed. From my recent online research, I know that parking firms add a spurious and unrecoverable £60 to each £100 PCN. Case XXXXXX has 7 PCN’s (of which 6 of 7 dates are identical) on the Particulars amounting to £899.72, however case XXXXXX has just 4 PCN’s amounting to £841.55 (of which 3 of 4 dates are identical).

This surely makes their Particulars Of Claim inadmissible, since it discloses no transparent facts that can lead to a claim in law with any prospects of success.

In sending this letter I am respectfully seeking the Court's Directions, rather than find on the day that the first case is then adjourned when this is raised, and thus wasting everyone's time and that of the court service. It seems to me that, if the claims are not summarily struck out, the hearing listed for one of the claims in March 2020 may need to be vacated and new Directions issued to the parties.

A copy of this letter has been served to the Claimant's solicitors, in the interests of open dealing and in accordance with the CPRs.

Signed


The Defendant

Redx

Bear in mind that it's the claimant who will have to see that you mean business , not Gladstone's , G will take instructions from their client , but don't think that G,s prepare all these cases and don't think they are getting paid a lot of money for doing so , it's not like an injury case

I am not convinced that they or DCBL or b w legal actually have trained solicitors going through each and every case

Bear in mind that you are consumed by your own 2 cases and are learning the tiniest aspects , G,s won't be doing the same and won't attend either, chances are they will send a legal beagle who isn't familiar with the case and only got the paperwork the day before , so is ill prepared

In the CEC16 case , a barrister was sent but still lost to a well prepared lay rep , semi retired school teacher , lol , happy days