Court Claim - draft defence

KeithP

Of course you need a Witness Statement and evidence.

Are you no longer following the guidance in the NEWBIES thread?
It tells you exactly how to progress things.

Coupon-mad

NewBornBaby said:

G24, and the solicitor is Gladstones.

Your previous post here was no long ago it sounds like you haven't read any recent Gladstones threads?  Start there (read loads fo Gs threads - they keep discontinuing without a hearing in most cases!) as well as re-reading the NEWBIES thread post #2 about the VITAL stage of Witness Statement and evidence.

In fact you were here so long ago do you even know how to argue abuse of process about the false added £60?  Read lots of Gladstone threads.

Le_Kirk

NewBornBaby said:

Hello, I have my day in court (over the phone) on 4th August.
I sent my defence back in November.  Do I also need to send a witness statement and if so, when should I send it and where can I find advice about what to include (e.g. I want to add something that was not in my original defence)?
Thank you,

Presumably you received a notification letter about the date; what instructions were there in that letter?  Follow those and, as advised by @KeithP, the NEWBIE sticky.

NewBornBaby

Coupon-mad said:

NewBornBaby said:

G24, and the solicitor is Gladstones.

Your previous post here was no long ago it sounds like you haven't read any recent Gladstones threads?  Start there (read loads fo Gs threads - they keep discontinuing without a hearing in most cases!) as well as re-reading the NEWBIES thread post #2 about the VITAL stage of Witness Statement and evidence.

In fact you were here so long ago do you even know how to argue abuse of process about the false added £60?  Read lots of Gladstone threads.

Hello if I understand it correctly the false £60 is an arbitrary amount added by the claimant after the forming of an alleged contract between the driver and the parking company.  Therefore it falls foul of the consumer rights act.  It is also disproportionate to the initial £100 charge which itself relies on stating that amount (£100) is fair, therefore it attempts to go beyond the Beavis decision.  And the Taylor judgement also says that the latter taints the whole claim as it is an abuse of process.
Is that the nub of the argument?

KeithP

NewBornBaby said:

Hello if I understand it correctly the false £60 is an arbitrary amount added by the claimant after the forming of an alleged contract between the driver and the parking company.  Therefore it falls foul of the consumer rights act.  It is also disproportionate to the initial £100 charge which itself relies on stating that amount (£100) is fair, therefore it attempts to go beyond the Beavis decision.  And the Taylor judgement also says that the latter taints the whole claim as it is an abuse of process.
Is that the nub of the argument?

Yes, that is exactly right.

It also exceeds the limit imposed by the POFA, which effectively states that the max recoverable amount is that shown on the signs..

NewBornBaby

KeithP said:

NewBornBaby said:

Hello if I understand it correctly the false £60 is an arbitrary amount added by the claimant after the forming of an alleged contract between the driver and the parking company.  Therefore it falls foul of the consumer rights act.  It is also disproportionate to the initial £100 charge which itself relies on stating that amount (£100) is fair, therefore it attempts to go beyond the Beavis decision.  And the Taylor judgement also says that the latter taints the whole claim as it is an abuse of process.
Is that the nub of the argument?

Yes, that is exactly right.

It also exceeds the limit imposed by the POFA, which effectively states that the max recoverable amount is that shown on the signs..

Thank you.  I've also noticed that there seems to be a contradition between the "car park management services agreement" and the signs they claim were on site.  See attached, the max stay and the charge are different.  Is this something that is significant?

NewBornBaby

And finally, the landowner ceased trading before the LBC was issued.

Coupon-mad

That is brilliant (the difference between the sign and the contract). 

You need to show in your WS that the operator was not authorised by the landowner to run a scheme restricting people to a mere 45 minutes free stay and they were not authorised to charge £100 either.

So they lack the commercial justification & legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in ParkingEye v Beavis from being struck out as a penalty.  A third party agent can't just make up terms.

NewBornBaby

Hello I have attached a draft witness statement in case there are any areas can be strengthened I would appreciate your comments.  I need to email to the court this Thursday 30th July.  Thank you.

Coupon-mad

Looks great, apart from this because of course the SOuthampton transcript exists and you can append it:

32. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

And don't forget to append a costs assessment signed and dated to try to get your costs.