County Court Claim

mercuteio

It's likely that I'll be using a few examples of case law as evidence, including the Beavis vs. Parking Eye case, and also Schedule 4 of the POFA and Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act. Some of these are quite sizeable documents (especially the Beavis judgment, at 124 pages).

Do you normally print out each case and legal schedule in its entirety as evidence? Or perhaps only the specific pages where points are referenced (e.g. only the pages containing the referenced paragraphs from Beavis?)

mercuteio

Question regarding POFA Schedule 4:

Is this only applicable for the keeper, rather than the driver? The reason I ask is that POFA states that the maximum sum that can be claimed from the keeper is that which is on the Notice To Keeper. I was therefore planning to use that as part of my statement regarding the additional £60 VCS have decided to bung onto the £100 NTK.

However, as I am not disputing that I was driving, does this apply?

I know I will still be able to use Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act for this, but I am wondering if POFA also supports my argument or if, by the fact that I accept that I was driving, POFA no longer applies?

beamerguy

The answer is ABUSE OF PROCESS by adding the fake £60

Regardless how VCS try to twist it around, the courts have told VCS that this not allowed. The Beavis case makes it very clear that the ticket price is inclusive and the courts have their own double recovery ruling.

mercuteio

beamerguy wrote: »

The answer is ABUSE OF PROCESS by adding the fake £60

Regardless how VCS try to twist it around, the courts have told VCS that this not allowed. The Beavis case makes it very clear that the ticket price is inclusive and the courts have their own double recovery ruling.

Thanks for replying. Ok, so just stick to calling it an abuse of process, and keep away from POFA?

nosferatu1001

No, POFA does not help you! POFA only helps a *keeper*, not a *driver*.

mercuteio

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, POFA does not help you! POFA only helps a *keeper*, not a *driver*.

Great - thank-you!

Coupon-mad

mercuteio wrote: »

Thanks for replying. Ok, so just stick to calling it an abuse of process, and keep away from POFA?

I disagree.

The reason why £60 cannot be added is threefold, and the 3 points are in CEC16's thread.

There is no need to re-write them and decide 'oh I'll only mention the Beavis case and I'll just randomly call it an 'abuse of process' and expect the Judge to know what I mean'.

One of the 3 points used at CEC16's hearing was the POFA, and whilst it applies in fact to keepers, there is no reason why para 4(5) and 4(6) of it can't be quoted, even if a driver has been admitted, because it shows the clear intention of Parliament that double recovery is not allowed and that a parking charge on private land is capped at a ceiling.

There is no need to reinvent what was used at Southampton or just call it an abuse of process. I'd avoid that phrase, in fact.

mercuteio

Thanks for this, guys. Sorry for the sudden loss of contact - for some reason, yesterday I started getting repeated Captcha messages again and again each time I tried to post. So, unable to get past them, I then tried using a different browser, using my phone, and rebooting my computer - the end result being that the next time I tried to log in I got a message saying that my IP address had been banned!

So, I'm on a different computer on a different network today, having just printed out the court's copy (handing in shortly), and am hopeful that this message will send. Couldn't see any posts after a certain time yesterday, but thanks for your input anyway CM.


Wrote a message at some point yesterday which I saved, including a redacted version of my witness statement, and will try to post that below. Thank-you so much everyone. Fingers crossed you can see this and my next post (still currently banned at home, I think - hoping the admins will pick this problem up very soon! What an unfortunately critical moment for a glitch in the system!)

Le_Kirk

Were you trying to paste from Microsoft Word, as that will do it.

mercuteio

Ooh, didn't know that. Trying to paste again now, and it's doing the same thing here. Eurgh. May try pasting from a PDF version