County Court Defence Help Please

dollydoodar

How is this?

I also downloaded paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the CRA and put them into a document as evidence. is that okay? 

Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and false added costs - an abuse of process

27. The CRA applies to terms in contracts entered into from 2015. Whilst in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, it was held that the £85 charge in that case - involving a non-disabled driver and very prominent signage - did not breach the  CRA due to the facts unique to that Chelmsford location, the relevant regulations and test of fairness must still be considered in every case.

28. Whilst the fairness of the charge was not raised in my defence, this is not an issue because s71(2) of the CRA provides for a duty upon the court to consider the fairness of all consumer terms (e.g. the policy to impose an inflexible time limit and then fail to identify disabled service users or provide instructions or a mechanism to exempt them) and the fairness of consumer notices (i.e. the sparse car park signs with tiny font), whether a consumer raises the issue, or not at all. The CRA contains a fairness test and a ‘grey list’ and the added £82 is a disingenuous attempt at double recovery and certainly disallowed by the applicable consumer legislation (now and in 2017) with reference to paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the grey list of terms that are likely to be unfair.

29. The Claimant has no excuse for filing a claim where £82 has been added. They have received adverse Orders from the courts in recent months and failed to appeal even when a judgment went against them, when they applied to set aside a series of parking claims that were summarily struck out for abuse of process; specifically, for adding a false sum to a parking charge - as in my case:
(i) (DD14) - Premier Park claim struck out by Warwick County Court - (no appeal).

(ii) (DD16) - multiple parking charge cases struck out by Southampton County Court - BW Legal tried and failed in an application in late 2019 to set aside the 'strike-out' Orders and this exhibit shows the Approved Judgment and reasoning of District Judge Grand.  

30. BW Legal chose not to appeal, and given that their first duty is to the Court, continuing with more parking claims in other court areas and still adding £60 to every one of them, is an abuse of process and surely a matter for the courts to raise as a concern for the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate, if the court has that power and inclination. If this Claim proceeds to trial, the representative sent by BW Legal for Premier Park will be questioned about this duplicity in view of both companies already knowing that their claims are exaggerated and unrecoverable.

30.1 Further, at Skipton County court on 27.2.2020 - an area where Judges are also summarily striking out every parking charge case where £60 has been falsely added - Excel Parking Services failed to overturn six strike-out orders, in a mirror image application hearing just like the one BW Legal lost in Southampton. They were refused leave to appeal, the application to set aside was dismissed and the Claimant was found to have behaved unreasonably. Costs of £331.10 were awarded to a lead Defendant in claim no F3QZ38JK (one of the six) because the District Judge Fay Wright held that the Dammerman test was met by the conduct of the parking firm (DD15)

30.2 The private parking industry continues to demonstrate significant irregularities in their affairs and AOS member parking firms invariably trade in a way that fails to show integrity or a social conscience and disregards consumer law and the public interest, and the Court and my MP will be encouraged to report the conduct of this particular Claimant in my case, to the Secretary of State.

Coupon-mad

Yep, that's fine, except the Beavis case was just before the UTCCRs got replaced by the CRA...so the line about the Beavis case should read:

did not breach the UTCCRs

(this is the only place you need to mention the old UTCCRs)

The good thing about using the Southampton case is you can use the words of DJ Grand to kind of 'speak for you' if asked about what your objection is to the falsely added £82.  Take the Judge to your evidence exhibits and say:

''District Judge Grand at Southampton explains the issues better than I could, but there are legal reasons why the parking charge must already include all costs of the operation.  More can't be added for admin or 'debt recovery' because that would be double recovery of the alleged costs, twice.''

dollydoodar

should i post the whole thing again?

The CRA applies to terms in contracts entered into from 2015. Whilst ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, it was held that the £85 charge in that case - involving a non-disabled driver and very prominent signage - did not breach the UTCCRs due to the facts unique to that Chelmsford location, the relevant regulations and test of fairness must still be considered in every case

Coupon-mad

No need, I say you have done a good job, and should email it to the court and the Claimaint now.  I also suggested by pm a lower figure for your costs as you must stay under two-thirds of the cost, had a solicitor prepared all this.  As explained in my pm, I've seen one argued (solicitor's assessment) for about £700.

dollydoodar

i have lowered my costs. thank you so much for all your help. i will post up their WS when it arrives...

Fruitcake

Again, you have used the term Equality Act CoP. It is not a Code of Practice but an Act of Parliament, in other words it is the law. Just refer to it once by its full name followed by the initials in brackets, then refer to it as the EA 2010 after that.

Coupon-mad

There is an EHRC EA 'Statutory CoP for Service Providers' as well but you have to be clear which you are referring to.

dollydoodar

Fruitcake said:

Again, you have used the term Equality Act CoP. It is not a Code of Practice but an Act of Parliament, in other words it is the law. Just refer to it once by its full name followed by the initials in brackets, then refer to it as the EA 2010 after that.

too late now...

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

There is an EHRC EA 'Statutory CoP for Service Providers' as well but you have to be clear which you are referring to.

which one am i referring to please? 

should i mention this mistake and the other typo error i made in my defence, to the judge? i feel as though i should ask to be forgiven for my errors and explain that it wasn't my intention to cause any inconvenience. not being a professional, i have doubtless made some other errors 

CEL's paperwork is not in yet, case is the 17th... should i contact them to ask what's going on? i don't want to 

nosferatu1001

Have you checked that the court has their bundle ?By what deadline did they have to file it? It would normally be the same as yours. 
If the court has nothing from CEL then ask that theclaim is struck out, as they have failed to comply with the courts order of X date and have not asked for relief from sanction, and as a professionally represented firm with an inhouse lawyer, no relief should be granted in any case.