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

Coupon-mad

I have lots of good photos.

And you printed them as evidence as well, we hope?

OK, now you need a costs schedule to follow that next week, and a skeleton argument about the legal stuff, Consumer Rights Act 2015, like in CEC16's thread.

And that can go to the court and Claimant next week, as a 'few days' deadline applies.

MiguelCotto

Yes I printed and submitted the photos and did a direct comparison with the one in the Beavis case. The photos CEL supplied seemed to shoot themselves in the foot as they often didn't show any signage at all. I've created the costs schedule.

Could you point me towards the Consumer rights Act 2015 you mention - I found CEC16's thread which quotes the costs on the claim being disproportionate and disingenuous - is this what you are referring to?

So to confirm, once I have created a costs schedule AND skeleton argument I actually send both to claimant & court as well?

DoaM

MiguelCotto wrote: »

Could you point me towards the Consumer rights Act 2015 you mention

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=consumer+rights+act+2015

MiguelCotto

Apologies but I can't see any reference to Consumer rights act 2015 in CE16's thread or a skeleton argument - am I missing something?

I'm assuming the thrust of my argument will be small signage and abuse of process and that I don't need to touch on every point listed in my defence - is that correct

Le_Kirk

MiguelCotto wrote: »

Apologies but I can't see any reference to Consumer rights act 2015 in CE16's thread or a skeleton argument - am I missing something?

I'm assuming the thrust of my argument will be small signage and abuse of process and that I don't need to touch on every point listed in my defence - is that correct

It is CEC16 and if you search the Community for the Members list and then search for CEC16, you can click on the name and click on all threads started by CEC16 - there is only one. Then you go to post #79 and scroll down until you get to: -

1. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge against a registered keeper who was not driving, was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
2. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
3. The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this vague add-on, is void for uncertainty...AND in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paras 6, 10 and 14.

It is also to be found in the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and the comment at post # 14 of that thread - find it by searching.

MiguelCotto

Thanks this is great - I had the right thread but was searching the page for the detail but the page is paginated - my mistake.

MiguelCotto

Hi CEL included part of the Beavis case. If it is short enough I was going to append to the end of my skeleton as I have the CRA & POFA paras.
Where can I find these paras:  Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287

KeithP

I just stuck Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287 into google and it showed me a 124 page pdf which included those paragraphs - and all the others.

MiguelCotto

Hi folks I would appreciate your feedback on this skeleton argument considering my WS was made in a rush.

In the County Court at XXXX

Skeleton Argument on behalf of XXXXXXXXXX

Claim No.: XXXXX

XXXXXXX  XXth February 2020

 

This is a skeleton argument by the defendant (“Mr XXXXXXXXX”) against Civil Enforcement Ltd (The Claimant). Mr XXXXXXXXX asks the Court to dismiss this claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing because: 

·      The main thrust of this case is that a parking contravention was made by a driver who entered into a contract on seeing signage at the site. The signage in this case has been shown to be wholly inadequate. Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 5 clearly show signage to be either missing (entrance) or so small as to be likely missed by any normal person. The text referring to a fine on overstaying is small to the point subterfuge. 

·      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). (Included below)

·      The Claimant knew or should have known, that £180.58 charge was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.

·      The Claimant knew or should have known, that £180.58 charge where the signs did not specify a sum for this vague add-on, is void for uncertainty AND in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the grey list of terms that may be unfair) paras 6, 10 and 14. (Included below).

When considering the above, as registered keeper Mr XXXXXXXXX cannot knowingly have entered into any contract and also that Civil Enforcement Ltd are in breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 & Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, I ask the court to strike out this robo-claim and find in favour of Mr XXXXXXXXX.

Coupon-mad

Yep, send that and your costs schedule as well, asap.  Split into standard costs and 'costs on the indemnity basis for unreasonable conduct' =  hours of time spent at £19 per hour, like in the other threads you see at the same stage.