clam form - defence- help needed - ACE security services - Gladstone's

NeilCr

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I am still confused about your point 2.2 concerning the validity of the permit. You state the permit shows 21/05 but what date/time does the validity expire. I am (and I am sure the judge would be) confused around the: -
This needs to be explained more fully so that the judge can understand what you mean. If you are saying that the permit expired at midnight and the PCN was issued after midnight, surely you are arguing the claimant's case for them. More clarity required here.

Yes. This struck me, too.

OP. Did the concierge say anything about the length of the validity of the permit. Maybe I am a bit anal but I would have asked for clarification given it said 21/05 to 21/05.

I think I'd be wary of saying something like "The driver expected it to be valid until 8 am the next morning". Would you have called it predatory if the ticket had been issued at, say, 7 am.

ETA

I can see that this came from the estimable Coupon-Mad but it still worries me. I am not sure that the fact there was a conversation with the concierge helps as the driver had a chance to be clear about what the permit covered - and as I say I would have asked

However, C-M knows far more than me so you should go with what she says over me when it comes down to it!

Le_Kirk

It is a little clearer now and seems to me that that concierge was setting you up to fail UNLESS the concierge's office was still open at midnight and could issue a new permit. Was/is this the case? To me this is frustration of contract due to the strange behaviour of the PPC or concierge on behalf of the PPC. Maybe you would need a new permit from the time the concierge's office opened on 22/05.

NeilCr

Le_Kirk wrote: »

It is a little clearer now and seems to me that that concierge was setting you up to fail UNLESS the concierge's office was still open at midnight and could issue a new permit. Was/is this the case? To me this is frustration of contract due to the strange behaviour of the PPC or concierge on behalf of the PPC. Maybe you would need a new permit from the time the concierge's office opened on 22/05.

Suspect the concierge probably did what they were asked. I need a permit for today. Okay here you are.

Again, I would have said that I am parking here for today (21/05) but will not be leaving until x o clock on 22/05. Can you provide me with a permit/permits to cover this please. It's not up to the concierge to second guess what the driver was going to do. For all they knew the driver might have been leaving early evening on 21/05.

OP. It might help if you can find out how the conversation between the concierge and the driver actually went

kanjar13

I think the concierge is open all night, they do take breaks when the door is locked and there is no one there. the truth is the driver wasn't expecting to stay past midnight but was wrapped up in work so didn't go down to get a new permit plus they didn't realise it was 24 hour enforcement zone (the signa was about 1-2 parking spaces away, high up and poorly lit) so didn't think they would need that as they left shortly after the ticket was given out.

Now I am losing hope as I feel my argument is invalid

Another question I have:
if I do happen to lose the amount they are asking to pay is around £250ish, is there any way to reduce this? Ive been trying to search the board for cases that were lost in court but haven't found one as of yet. I was under the impression that if you lose you can't claim anything and didn't realise there is a way of reducing the amount owed.
Thanks guys.

Redx

plenty of info on here about the amount

look at the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by beamerguy

checkout the posts by members bargepole and Johnnersh

the typical charge on a PE court case is about £175 , so check why that is


a judge may still find it understandable as to the issues regarding the permit , especially with regards to signage and frustration of contract

the driver endeavoured to comply by obtaining what they thought was a valid permit, and displayed it

NeilCr

Redx wrote: »

plenty of info on her about the amount

look at the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by beamerguy

checkout the posts by members bargepole and Johnnersh

the typical charge on a PE court case is about £175 , so check why that is


a judge may still find it understandable as to the issues regarding the permit , especially with regards to signage and frustration of contract

the driver endeavoured to comply by obtaining what they thought was a valid permit, and displayed it

This

Please don't lose hope.

There are plenty of avenues of attack. It's just that I am not sure that I'd major on the predatory aspect - especially if the concierge was available until midnight.

kanjar13

ok, so should I add the bit about abuse of process to my witness statement and invite the judge to read it as it can be accessed by them within their internal system so something like this:

4 Abuse of Process

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 (See EX15) not with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover (as per Claim number is F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, which I politely invite the Court to read)







sorry about going over this again, I'm so stressed at this point so can't even think clearly

Redx

yes you should but add more, for instance there are 2 that were struck out , DJ Grand as well as DJ Taylor , somehow you have condensed the 6 or 7 paragraphs that coupon mad wrote into a half of one paragraph only

kanjar13

Redx wrote: »

yes you should but add more, for instance there are 2 that were struck out , DJ Grand as well as DJ Taylor , somehow you have condensed the 6 or 7 paragraphs that coupon mad wrote into a half of one paragraph only

thanks so instead of what I have just posted I basically just copied C-M paragraphs (obviously having read them first) and pasted into my WS. Is this OK or should I edit them rather than copying and pasting (they all seem to have valid points which is why I left them all as they are)

one more question:
we are going to get someone else to deliver our bundle as close to the 14 days prior as possible (we're away for 2 weeks) but just to clear u they do mean 14 calendar days and not 14 working days? it's not specified on the letter it just says "no later than fourteen days before the hearing"

kanjar13

also say my hearing is on 27/08 so I have until 4pm on 12.08 to deliver my WS?