Parking Eye CCJ Challenge

KeithP

AMP279 wrote: »

Regarding the date for filing I emailed CCBC and they have given me the date of the 20th, I am nervous of going past this not unless KeithP has factored in a weekend?

Have a look at page 14 of the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide, where it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue.

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th August, the Date of Service becomes 24th August. By doing the AoS you extended the Defence filing deadline to 28 days after the Date of Service - 21st September 2019.

As 21st September is a Saturday, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd September 2019 to file your Defence.

Of course, if your Claim Issue Date is not 19th August - that's what you told us in your opening post - then that calculation is meaningless.

Le_Kirk

Your paragraphs 5, 6 & 20 all seem to be making the same point.

Good to see you have included the abuse of process but you have missed Newport (IOW) and the latest one at Caernarfon.

Your point 15 request a copy of the contract. Don't think you can ask for this in a defence but you can "put the claimant to strict proof of a contract."

Every paragraph requires a number and you have a few paragraphs without this.

AMP279

Thanks Le_Kirk I will make the updates and hopefully its good enough to send? Just to re-iterate that Issue Date for the claim was the 19th its just odd that the CCBC email stated the 20th can they get this wrong?

KeithP

AMP279 wrote: »

Just to re-iterate that Issue Date for the claim was the 19th its just odd that the CCBC email stated the 20th can they get this wrong?

Yes. I have demonstrated to you that they can.

Do the arithmetic yourself.

AMP279

Hi Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad I was trying to track the claim number for the Newport (IOW) case but it does no seem to be posted by Toddygirl did you ever get an answer in the end as I need this info by the looks of it if I want to use this?

Le_Kirk

I don't think we know the case number at IOW, if you look again at the thread by beamerguy with C-m's post # 14, you will see another case has been added: -

That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: -.............

AMP279

Great! I have added extra paragraphs to cover the Abuse of Process and mentioned the IOW case although I dont have the case number and added the Case number FTQZ4W28 as well see below to check if thats ok? I can submit a final draft V3 as well if you think this is worthwhile??

[FONT=&quot]25. Claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: "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 not with reference to the judgement 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"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]26. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies)on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''[/FONT]

KeithP

Typo... Distract = District

Le_Kirk

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: "IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

Better as: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant quotes from the case cited: "IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

This is to ensure that the court/judge knows you are quoting not ordering.

AMP279

Many thanks Le_Kirk and good spot KeithP what an amazing job you all do! The line "who are those guys?" from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid springs to mind!! Ok think I am ready to send and start the next stages.....