Court Summons Received - ignored all previous letters - what now?

MiguelCotto

read the latter part of this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6034277/parking-fine-gladstone-solicitors/p6

Thanks - Also good to see a victory in the same court...

MiguelCotto

Le_Kirk said:

Coupon-mad said:

I wrote in more detail about costs on 24th January on two threads.  Good luck in making the new forum search work to find them but there was some detail there about what can/can't be claimed.

Was it this one: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76759005#Comment_76759005

Thanks -  I searched via the date but gave up in the end. I've now scaled back the amount & sent it to CEL.

MiguelCotto

Coupon-mad said:

No, the point of the Beavis case quotes from para 98, 193 and 198 is what those 3 sections say, very clearly when you read them - that a parking charge MUST already include the operational/business costs and that was part of the reason why the Supreme Court decided the £85 was justified, necessary and not a penalty.  
ParkingEye never add damages or extra operational costs to their claims.    They know they can't.
All the other firms try it on, and you need to use those 3 Beavis quotes, AND the POFA 4(5) AND the CRA 2015 Sch 2 (para 6, 10 and 14) to show why parking charges already contain all the business/letter/debt collection costs and in any case the signage fails to prominently state the charges, so the 'damages' added on are double recovery and are ALSO kicked out by the CRA test of fairness.

Apart from the argument about signage being inadequate - the above is pretty much my defence isn't it? In non jargon terms - This is what I should learn off by heart and that the Beavis quotes, POFA 4(5) and the CRA are all essentially that the extra charges being added are unlawful - is that correct?

I now have my WS, exhibits, skeleton argument and costs schedule in one neat paginated document with an index. I'll be dropping that off at the court. I'll also take that a printed copy with me on the day. The skeleton has the important paras from POFA & CRA but am I expected to have complete copies of POFA, CRA and the Beavis case? (Some of the Beavis case was submitted by CEL but missing a couple of paras). Is there anything else I should take apart from notebook and pen.
As ever - Thanks for all the help.

nosferatu1001

It is not a defnece to the underlying claim; just to the additional costs theyve flung on top, because theyre greedy money grubbing bar stewards. 
Have you served the same bundle on the claimant, as instructed? 

MiguelCotto

nosferatu1001 said:

It is not a defnece to the underlying claim; just to the additional costs theyve flung on top, because theyre greedy money grubbing bar stewards. 
Have you served the same bundle on the claimant, as instructed? 

Yes I've served to claimant. And yes I'm assuming those items are just for the additional costs and the bad signage argument is for defending the initial charge. - I just wanted to be sure I understand the overall legal arguments in layman's terms so I'm confident when talking about those points.

Coupon-mad

am I expected to have complete copies of POFA, CRA and the Beavis case?

No, but I like to take Sch4 of the POFA and Sch2 of the CRA to hand out (it's a few pages).

Is there anything else I should take apart from notebook and pen.

Smart clothes like it's a job interview!  

Wage slip (or whatever) to prove your 'loss of leave/salary' costs when you win.

MiguelCotto

HI guys just going over all of my stuff. I'm a little unsure about the POFA part of my defence and the basis of the non compliance with POFA.  Could someone confirm my understanding is correct and describe it in layman's terms if necessary, I'm at court tomorrow (Thurs) after lunch.

Is it that para  6 "Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery)."
Is basically saying the creditor can't chase the keeper for any more money than the original amount?

I struggle to understand text written in this way...

I read this somewhere: In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.

nosferatu1001

No, not at all. Para 4:
(5)The [b]maximum sum[/b] which may be [b]recovered from the keeper[/b] by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

All the para you are quoting does is statring that if they have OTHER causes of action against you then they can still pursue them, but they cant recover the same sum twice ie the parking charge notice amount again

MiguelCotto

Thanks but I'm having trouble getting my head around the POFA stuff. If they say they submitted the notice and all the POFA conditions were met - what is my defence in quoting those paras?

The Claimant knew or should have known, that £180.58 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of Protections of freedoms act, due to paras 4 (5) and 4 (6). 

<quote> All the para you are quoting does is stating that if they have OTHER causes of action against you then they can still pursue them, but they cant recover the same sum twice ie the parking charge notice amount again</quote>  Do you mean over 2 different parking infringements? - sorry if I'm being a bit slow... 

nosferatu1001

1) it is not a defence to the underlying charge!
Thats why
The MAXIMUM AMOUNT they can claim from you is the amount on the NTK, and *obviously* they can claim court costs on top. The £180 is clearly made up of what, £100 parking charge, some interest, and ~£60 in *some other charges* that are neither
- the amount on the NtK
nor are they
- court costs
This means they are not allowed. So it is an abuse of process to claim this amount. 
Have you read the many, many MANY times "abuse of prcess" has been mentioned on the threads? There is a current thread which talks exactly about this issue. You MUST look at it, because you MUST in the hearing raise the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA2015) - this is ok to do, because the CRA2015 states trhe court MUST consider it even if you have not raised it before. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "other remedy" part - no, not at all. If you had been charged actual damages and they then wanted to get an injunciton against you to stop you doing it again, without that line they may have not been able to do so ( I say may as it is complex and far outisde of wha tyou need bother yourself with
In short
Ignore that line. It is in no way shape or form relevant to YOU