Britannia Parking v Crosby - Southampton judgment - attach to defences or witness statements

Coupon-mad

No, you are right - but only if there are grounds to complain about a solicitor. 

But it's the parking firms who add the £60 (not the solicitor) and a solicitor will just say they are doing what their client instructed in terms of the outstanding debt.

D_P_Dance

But it's the parking firms who add the £60 (not the solicitor) and a solicitor will just say they are doing what their client instructed in terms of the outstanding debt.

But is not a solicitor an officer of the court?   Are they not bound to ensure that their client is not trying to abuse court processes?.  

Coupon-mad

Yes they are officers of the court - but this is not a general discussion thread!

D_P_Dance

But what about an answer to my second question?  

nosferatu1001

You should indeed complain
The solicitors know this is an amount that cannot lawfully be claimed, and have a duty to the court not to process a claim including this. Yes, that means they have to refuse their clients instruction to file when it includes that amount. Anything less they are failing their professional standards and the SRA *should* step in. 

vol69

Coupon-mad said:

Claim nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T

Britannia Parking v Crosby & Anor  

Combined into a single PDF document – 22 + 6 = 28 pages (not to be amended or altered in any way).
You can print just the judgement last 6 pages if appending it to a Witness Statement, or the whole thing!

This is the 11.11.19 hearing transcript and judgment from Southampton court, where I was lay rep for Mr Crosby (CEC16 on here):  
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6006850/bw-legal-portswood-car-park-southampton/p1

BW Legal paid for the transcript (!) then decided not to appeal, as far as we are aware, and time is now up for that.

I suggest the judgment is appended and referred to, ideally at the start by attaching to your emailed DEFENCES to all non-ParkingEye cases from now on, along with the recent Skipton Order (also attached here) that shows that other courts are following suit in 2020 with 'exact match' reasoning.

PLEASE REFER TO THE CASE USING THE NAME I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, AS MR CROSBY AGREED HIS NAME CAN BE USED AND I ONLY REPRESENTED HIM.  THE OTHER DEFENDANT WAS A BYSTANDER WHO ALSO GOT COSTS!

District Judge Grand refused to set aside DJ Taylor's decision to strike out at least ten Britannia claims - the above two were heard as a test case application hearing.  Other planned hearings were vacated and all cases remained struck out.

This is not a precedent, so don't call it that when referring to it.  However, it can be used appended to your DEFENCE or your WITNESS STATEMENT (either) to show another Judge how and why Southampton County Court Hearing Centre is striking out parking charge cases that include added £60 (or more), described as 'debt collection' or 'contractual' or admin, business or indemnity costs.

I will be replacing the NEWBIES thread examples with a suggested single defence template shortly, to adapt for all on-ParkingEye cases, all the time that PPCs keep filing exaggerated claims with these false costs.

This judgment is NOT only for use in Britannia cases, and at the moment will apply to all claims from PPCs, except for those from PARKINGEYE because they don't add any false debt collection/operational costs.


NB: Please no posts asking for help about your case here.
Read the transcripts and the NEWBIES thread and then start your own discussion and we can help you win.

shall I attach to my defence Skipton and Southampton cases, as they are in the files you have shared, please?

Coupon-mad

My version has the Skipton and Warwick Orders already within the document so the only additional attachment will be the 6 page Soton Approved Judgement, which the end of the template says is Appendix C.

You attach that separately to your CCBC email when submitting your defence, and also let the Claimant's solicitors AND THE CCBC have the Soton Judgment again  for good measure, with your DQ email later on (see post #2) in case the CCBC do not upload the Soton PDF attachment. 

I'd like to think someone doing the allocations MIGHT just refer one of these to a judge at the CCBC...so attach it to your DQ emails and cross your fingers.

Sending these by email with the defence and with the DQ N180 form, at that stage a few weeks later, means you don't have to print it - except if your case goes to a hearing, then you'd take a couple of copies in your court bundle to hand out and shut the other side down if they bleat that they didn't get it.  Oh yes they did, twice...!

henrik777

D_P_Dance said:

This is getting more and more complicated.  How on earth can Doris the dinner lady, who overstayed by 10 minutes at the Co-op, wade through it, even with my massive IQ I struggle ryb

If winning arguments are too complicated for some, they can either be chanced in ignorance or not used. If they help 1 person then it's worth mentioning.

Coupon-mad

Far from being complicated, I feel like it's surely far easier to have one template defence that tries hard to get cases struck out. 

People don't need to read the entire transcript if they have the attention span of a gnat.  Just read the Approved Judgment only, the 6 page summary from DJ Grand.

This transcript and the new victory today at Skipton, make a new poster's life easier, because people with (nonParkingEye) claims can use the template defence in the other thread and just change the red bits to suit. Easier because more and more people will see their cases struck out without a hearing now.

When we have the court report from lamilad about today's thrashing of Excel, I will add a little about that too to the template defence in the other thread. 

The fact we have two court areas who have both refused to set aside their Orders and continue to strike every PPC case out where £60 is added, must make other Judges start to sit up and reconsider their stance about letting PPCs get away with these as far as hearings.

Just refusing the allow the £60 on a case-by-case basis, is letting the public down and several court areas are realising the wider public interest depends upon them.