Civil Enforcement - County Claim

Kazaa

I have not done a skeleton argument yet, but seems like this needs to be filed to ASAP. Will work on one now, to confirm this is basically a mix of my defence and WS? Correct?

Coupon-mad

It's what I explained above, specifically, not regurgitating what you said before.

It is a vehicle for you to shove in the 3 Beavis quotes, the POFA (if not already in evidence with your WS) and the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 (the grey list) with the relevant paras highlighted.

Your skelly just runs through what's attached and why.

I think you might find more than just paras 6, 10 and 14 of the Sch 2 grey list (unfair terms) that I used in the Southampton case. I am thinking #18 applies too, in your case...

Be aware that para 71 of the CRA puts a duty on the court to consider the fairness of a term or consumer notice, whether or not the consumer raises it earlier. You can ambush with the CRA on the day, you are allowed (I did).

Oh, and if they say the CRA cannot apply due to the issue being about a 'price term' that is 'exempt', the answer is this:

The CRA Guidance from the CMA (read it and print some) says that consumer notices are NOT exempt, ever. Find the words about that (from the CMA Guidance on the CRA), just in case. Some bedtime reading for you!

Kazaa

Ok thanks Coupon, i think this is applicable to my other case which is regarding inadequate signs.
This case is simply CEL being !!!!!! and not accepting proof of membership as me allowing to park at the gym.

nosferatu1001

Le Kirk - doesnt have to be the PPC either; if the gym as landHOLDER said the OP can park, then their agent is also estoppped as if the PPC had themselves made the promise.

Coupon-mad

Kazaa wrote: »

Ok thanks Coupon, i think this is applicable to my other case which is regarding inadequate signs.
This case is simply CEL being !!!!!! and not accepting proof of membership as me allowing to park at the gym.

It's applicable to all claims (except ParkingEye ones, generally). Any claim where the £100 has become £160.

Le_Kirk

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Le Kirk - doesnt have to be the PPC either; if the gym as landHOLDER said the OP can park, then their agent is also estoppped as if the PPC had themselves made the promise.

Yes, agreed and at least OP will now go and find out and use it with knowledge and understanding.

Kazaa

hello guys,

Received a letter late last week stating the court premises has changed from Chelmsford to Basildon. Is there any way i can fight this? Id rather have a date later but at my local court? Im on the phone to the court as we speak

nosferatu1001

Not hugely
Its not your choice.

Kazaa

Hello, I have a Skeleton Arguement as below, i will be sending a copy of this alongside print out of CRA grey list, para 6, 10 and 14. I will not print beavis as the Claimant has already provided the whole beavis case.

Please let me know if the below sounds good.

I am authorised by Ab Salute Gym to park in their car park.

1. I am a bona fide member of the Ab Salute Gym in Chelmsford, (Please refer to Exhibit A and Exhibit B of defendants evidence). I received a PCN on the 04th July 2018 and appealed this on the 09th August 2018 (please refer to claimants evidence AC8)

2. CEL rejected this appeal even though I provided them Ab Salute Gym’s number in good faith, so they can call them to confirm I am a member and am authorised to park at the gym.
3. To my disappointment CEL re issued another PCN on 15th August 2018, I then submitted my bank statement to show I have paid and am a valid member of the gym (Please refer to claimants evidence AC11).
4. The conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I have drafted a schedule of costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)g for my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter. If the claimant was reasonable they would have accepted I am a member of the gym and therefore the land owner Ab Salute Gym authorises me to park in the car park thus bringing this matter to a close.
5. Upon speaking to the landholder (Ab Salute Gym) (Please refer to Claimants evidence AC1), they agreed to cancel the PCN as I am a member (Please refer to Exhibit C of defendants evidence)
6. There was no overstay, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'.
7. In addition to the ‘parking charge’, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant. According to which practice/law is this allowed to be added?

8. What is the £100 for? This is not the same way as the Beavis charge (ref paras 98, 193 and 198 which clearly say the sum had to be set that high to cover the costs of the operation) either that, or this was an attempt at double recovery.

9.The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
10. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this 'debt collection' vague add-on, is void for uncertainty, in breach of the POFA para 9 (due to not 'specifying' the parking charges payable)...

...AND in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

Fruitcake

Do you have the alleged contract with the landowner/landholder (AC1?), and the Debt Crawlers alleged "bill" (AC3?) to show us.

Have they provided anything flowing from the landowner? Do you know who owns the land?