Parking Charge Notice issued at Sennen Cove Beach car park for not displaying a valid ticket

Grungewart

BWL statement can be found here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t90w05udx5s6auq/BWL-WS_000009.pdf?dl=0

Grungewart

Landowner auth here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qff343zsj3cj426/Landowner-auth.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Can you please show us KBT v Matton or have they not bothered to attach it?  We've not seen that stupid decision before and we need to read it.  The crap that HHJ Bloom has said about 'best endeavours not being enough' beggars belief in a consumer contract where she has a duty to consider the test of fairness, where clearly the lack of robustness of the 'sticky' ticket makes it unfit for purpose and the burden for that is not the fault of the consumer!

I am particularly interested to read Matton in full, because oddly, if HHJ Bloom had allowed the false costs, you'd have expected BW Legal to quote her on that too.  But they don't.  So I suspect (but don't know) that she may have disallowed the false £60 and we do need to see that decision.

Did they attach their landowner contract dated 2012?  Show us.

Did you notice they criticise you for mentioning the phrase 'indemnity basis' and deny the fake 'debt recovery costs' are claimed on that basis, then later quote from the sign that uses exactly that phrase?  You need to mention this in your WS and append the CMA Government Guidance on the CRA 2015, where in 5.14 (I think) it talks about the phrase 'costs on the indemnity basis' being unfair!!   

Also clearly, not to specify the false 'debt recovery' costs as a £sum means there is no certainty in the alleged contract, so the fake costs (which were never paid to anyone, and are double recovery) are unrecoverable.  This is covered by the examples your defence quoted in the CRA 2015.

Append Excel v Wilkinson and refer to that too.

.Append HHJ Hegarty's paragraph 419 from ParkingEye v Somerfield and refer to it again.  It was NOT superseded by Beavis, in fact Beavis didn't have to deal with fake added costs because of Somerfield, which stopped ParkingEye trying for those again!

Grungewart

They haven't attached KBT v Matton.

Landowner auth as attached is on the second dropbox link.

No, hadn't noticed the indemnity basis bit.

Coupon-mad

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

5.14.3 Other kinds of penal provisions which may be unfair are clauses saying that the business can:
 claim all its costs and expenses, not just its net costs resulting directly from the breach;
 claim both its costs and its loss of profit where this would lead to being compensated twice over for the same loss; and
 claim its legal costs on an ‘indemnity’ basis, that is all costs, not just costs reasonably incurred.

The words ‘indemnity’ and ‘indemnify’ are also objectionable as legal jargon – see the section on transparency in part 2 of the guidance. The fairness of any term is assessed having regard to the other terms of the contract, and even if not excessive when considered separately, may be unfair if it could operate together with another term or terms so as to lead to the trader being compensated twice for the same loss.

5.14.4 Potentially penal terms. A disproportionate financial sanction involving requirement to pay a fixed or minimum sum, in all circumstances, will be open to challenge if the sum could be too high in some cases. 

Grungewart

Great, thanks, I've added the point about indemnity and the section from the guidance on CRA.

I'll send that off in the morning.

Castle

Grungewart said:

Landowner auth here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qff343zsj3cj426/Landowner-auth.jpg?dl=0

Well according to that "contract"
1) Armtrac must, (at para 1), comply with BPA code of practice, (it's a member of the IPC).
2) At 3(c) it's only authorised to sue for trespass.
3) The "contract" fails to identify the landowner as it appears to be an un-named individual.

Fruitcake

Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 requires parties to a Simple Contract to have either express or implied authority to form a contract.
The landowner has not been named or identified in any evidence provided by the claimant.  The signature on the alleged contract is illegible and could have been signed by anyone. The claimant has therefore provided no proof that the person who has signed the contract is actually the landowner, or has express or implied authority from the landowner to form a contract with another party in accordance with the strict requirements of the above Act.

In addition, the person who has signed the alleged contract on behalf of the claimant has not been named or identified, the signature again being illegible.
The claimant has failed to prove the alleged contract was signed by a person with express or implied authority to sign a contract with another party on its behalf.

The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true. 

Grungewart

So yesterday (Tuesday) I was cc'd on emails from BWL to the court with their costs and an electronic copy of their bundle.  Odd since the submission deadline was Monday but I'm assuming they already sent a paper copy of the bundle to the court (I haven't spotted a difference yet apart from the electronic version including my stuff too).

Was a bit surprised by the costs bit though as I hadn't seen that previously.

Umkomaas

Was a bit surprised by the costs bit though as I hadn't seen that previously.

What are they trying to scam now?