Help with Defence for CC claim from Parking Eye who haven’t allowed grace period.

Coupon-mad

Once tweaked as per 1505grandad's advice, that's a very good WS for a ParkingEye case, where your main task is to convince the Judge how difference the facts are to Beavis...and you have done a good job of that.

Now is the time to also submit your costs schedule, as per loads of examples you find when you search the forum (and 2 examples are also linked in the NEWBIES thread).

Not_a_pushover.

Many thanks both of you for spending your time on this.Much appreciated.Tweaks obviously required.
As my case is mainly about PE not abiding by their own and BOS’s CoP re: grace periods,is it necessary to add those bits about abuse of process and landowner authority?

Redx

We have seen cases where judges have decided a court case on what seem like minor issues or not in dispute issues , so why not cover all bases

The premiership leaders still play a goalie even if they are playing Accrington Stanley

Not_a_pushover.

Just reading into this ‘abuse of process’ do I need to put all this in?

Not_a_pushover.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

- The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an 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, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

- 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 and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


Sent from my iPhone

Le_Kirk

Not_a_pushover. wrote: »

Just reading into this ‘abuse of process’ do I need to put all this in?

That seems like an old one, Coupon-mad has updated her comments at post # 14 of that thread by beamerguy. Also search for a thread by user CEC16 and read that.

Not_a_pushover.

Have now read more up with the suggestions you made Le_Kirk.As ParkingEye haven’t been inflating the fine by an extra £60:00 just charging £100:00 for the fine with “legal costs” of £50:00 is it still advisable to mention abuse of process?
Sorry for being a bit thick legally on this matter .

beamerguy

Not_a_pushover. wrote: »

Have now read more up with the suggestions you made Le_Kirk.As ParkingEye haven’t been inflating the fine by an extra £60:00 just charging £100:00 for the fine with “legal costs” of £50:00 is it still advisable to mention abuse of process?
Sorry for being a bit thick legally on this matter .

NO, Abuse of process is just for the scammers adding a fake £60
PE do not do that ... yet

Not_a_pushover.

Many thanks again beamerguy.Was getting a little overwhelming there reading all that stuff.

Le_Kirk

Aha, it is ParkingEye, then of course you don't need/can't use the Abuse of Process as beamerguy says. You introduced it in your posts #45 & #46 and I didn't read back through the thread.