Claim form pack arrived for parking fines on private land

simone82

41 The Judge determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

42 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

43 The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

44 If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

45 A similarly artificially inflated claim was struck out as an abuse of process by District Judge Jones-Evans of Caernarfon Justice Centre on 04/09/19 without a hearing, due to the additional charge being deemed a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss and so unenforceable in law.  The judge stated that the whole case was, ‘nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the supreme court in Beavis’ (VCS v Davies) (Exhibit ?).

46 A second, similarly artificially inflated claim was struck out as an abuse of process by District Judge Grand of Newport County Court on 24/11/18 without a hearing, due to the additional charge not being POFA 2012 compliant or reflecting the Beavis case (UKCPM v Esplanade Ltd) (Exhibit ?).

47 My local MP, XXXX has stated that supports the debate in Parliament regarding the Parking Code (Code of Practice) Act 2019, he welcomes the bill that was passed in March 2019 and hopes that this law will whittle out the rogue parking companies, along with bad practices (Exhibit ?).

48 Finally, having outlined my witness statement with supporting evidence, I encourage the court to strike out the claims against myself as there are no sound grounds of claim and to grant compensation in accordance to my cost of schedule (Exhibit ?)

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

DoaM

#29 ... Beavis also supports this point as the ruling found that business costs (including those of debt recovery) were already encompassed in the PCN amount. (£85 in the Beavis case, so a PCN of £100 must by default thus already include debt recovery costs).

simone82

DoaM said:

#29 ... Beavis also supports this point as the ruling found that business costs (including those of debt recovery) were already encompassed in the PCN amount. (£85 in the Beavis case, so a PCN of £100 must by default thus already include debt recovery costs).

Thank you I have added this

simone82

Good morning
Can I serve the Claimants WS via email instead of posting?  And if my case is to be heard on the 4th March can I submit to the Court in person tomorrow morning?  Thank you

nosferatu1001

1) Depends. Do you have their EXPLICIT permission? If NO, then have THEY served *court* related documents on you via email? Yes or No. If NO, then strictly - no, you must send through post. THis is covered in the CPRs. 
2) Only if your deadline is 14 days before , but in general you DO serve on the court in person. 

simone82

At @Coupon-mad .  In response to thus letter I sent to the Judge asking to consolidate they have replied stating that the Court is not able to deal with this matter by way of correspondence.  A formal application notice on form N244 is required.  

I also received my Court date for the second claim, which is basically the same as the first and although at the top it states my local court, the address of the hearing is the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London???!!!

Can someone please advise?

Coupon-mad said:

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

Coupon-mad

I also received my Court date for the second claim, which is basically the same as the first and although at the top it states my local court, the address of the hearing is the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London???!!!

OK, are you in London (fairly near) or is that a mistake?

Are you saying the hearings are on the same date?

Write immediately to that other Judge named at the Royal Courts of Justice and ask that they liaise with the other court (attach a copy of the other court letter - the one setting the court date, NOT the latest unhelpful one!) stating that you can't be in two places at once, and as both matters should have been brought as one single claim by this predatory Claimant, please could the Royal Courts of Justice date be vacated and the second claim stayed, pending the result of the first hearing which is about exactly the same facts.

What you are hoping for is to have this picked up by a more helpful Court manager who will do the above, than your local court who were useless.

simone82

@Coupon-mad I live close to Heathrow so would take me a few hours by the tube to get there for 10am.
No they are not on the same date, one is next Weds and the other one is the 19th March.  This really worries me, as if the Judge at my local court has reacted in this way, what can I expect on my court date on Weds

nosferatu1001

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Seriouslyt. Nothing. 
It just means they want it done formally, not using their powers. WHich is fine. they can insist on that. Has no bearing on how theyre treating you. 

simone82

Just received a letter from the Court ahead of my day next week on the 4th March stating the following:
"Take notice that the Small Claims Hearing on 4 March 2020 has been adjourned until 13th August 2020 at 1000 AM due to lack of Judicial resources"
This has now been changed to the RCJ in Central London.  @Coupon-mad is it common for cases to be adjourned so close to the date?