We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
F0GF1K4A - UK CPM/Gladstones vs Proudsonofduck - defendant win and awarded full costs
proudsonofduck
Posts: 13 Forumite
HI All,
Have received WS from notorious Jack Chapman, am struggling to understand what he is saying.
Would anyone be able to translate the following from the WS?:
"No authority to enforce charges
....both VCS vs HMRC (2013) and Parking Eye vs Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance"
My understanding is that they need to demonstrate proprietary interest in order to pursue me for their alleged breach of contract however they seem to be saying this is not relevant
"Sums added to the charge
My Company denies the assertion it is seeking more than £100 for the parking charge and is therefore attempting 'double recovery'
My Company seeks its legal costs which are recoverable pursuant to CPR 27 and CPR 45 in this regard, my company relies upon CPR 27.14 (2)(a)(i) and CPR 27.14 (c) which state:
(2) the court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that party's costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except -
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which -
1. are payable under Part 45
...
(c) any court fees paid by that other party;
My Company confirms that where it seeks recovery of legal costs, it relies on CPR 45.2 (1) (a) and (b), as these rules allow for the appropriate fixed costs on commencement of a claim for the recovery of money or goods in accordance with Table 1 to be sought, CPR 45.2 (1)(a) & (B) state the following:
(1) The amount of fixed commenced costs in a claim to which rule CPR 45.1 (2)(a) or (b) applies -
(a) will be calculated by reference to Table 1; and
(b) the amount claimed... in the claim form is to be used for determining the band in Table 1 that applies to the claim.
The applicable parts to this Claim in respect of CPR 45.2 (1) & (b) in table 1 are as follows:
"Where -
the value of the claim exceeds £25 but does not exceed £500
Where the claim form is served by the court or by any method other than the personal service by the claimant
£50 is identified as a recoverable sum within Table 1 as a recoverable sum and therefore does not require substantiation; as it s provided for in the CPR
My Company's court fees in respect of this matter are £25 on the issuance of the claim and £25 for the hearing fee. These costs are therefore recoverable pursuant to CPR 27.14 (c)
My Company is further able to seek recovery of interest ... at a rate of 8% pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
My understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling - ParkingEye vs Beavis - clearly states that all of these costs are recovered in the Parking Charge itself and therefore these additional costs are not recoverable
They then go on to attempt to justify the additional £60:
Have received WS from notorious Jack Chapman, am struggling to understand what he is saying.
Would anyone be able to translate the following from the WS?:
"No authority to enforce charges
....both VCS vs HMRC (2013) and Parking Eye vs Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance"
My understanding is that they need to demonstrate proprietary interest in order to pursue me for their alleged breach of contract however they seem to be saying this is not relevant
"Sums added to the charge
My Company denies the assertion it is seeking more than £100 for the parking charge and is therefore attempting 'double recovery'
My Company seeks its legal costs which are recoverable pursuant to CPR 27 and CPR 45 in this regard, my company relies upon CPR 27.14 (2)(a)(i) and CPR 27.14 (c) which state:
(2) the court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that party's costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except -
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which -
1. are payable under Part 45
...
(c) any court fees paid by that other party;
My Company confirms that where it seeks recovery of legal costs, it relies on CPR 45.2 (1) (a) and (b), as these rules allow for the appropriate fixed costs on commencement of a claim for the recovery of money or goods in accordance with Table 1 to be sought, CPR 45.2 (1)(a) & (B) state the following:
(1) The amount of fixed commenced costs in a claim to which rule CPR 45.1 (2)(a) or (b) applies -
(a) will be calculated by reference to Table 1; and
(b) the amount claimed... in the claim form is to be used for determining the band in Table 1 that applies to the claim.
The applicable parts to this Claim in respect of CPR 45.2 (1) & (b) in table 1 are as follows:
"Where -
the value of the claim exceeds £25 but does not exceed £500
Where the claim form is served by the court or by any method other than the personal service by the claimant
£50 is identified as a recoverable sum within Table 1 as a recoverable sum and therefore does not require substantiation; as it s provided for in the CPR
My Company's court fees in respect of this matter are £25 on the issuance of the claim and £25 for the hearing fee. These costs are therefore recoverable pursuant to CPR 27.14 (c)
My Company is further able to seek recovery of interest ... at a rate of 8% pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
My understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling - ParkingEye vs Beavis - clearly states that all of these costs are recovered in the Parking Charge itself and therefore these additional costs are not recoverable
They then go on to attempt to justify the additional £60:
- With reference to their Code of Practice (so what!!?? no legal authority)
- Stating that their sign informs the driver that "non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge" (breach of CRA2015)
- Claiming that their company has spent time and money pursuing recovery of the debt (Counter to ParkingEye vs Beavis)
0
Comments
-
"Sums added to the charge
They seem to be arguing against themselves here.. If they win they can claim a small fixed sum for legal expences if they can prove they paid them.
They then go on to justify the additional £60:
The law is against them on this.Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
You never know how far you can go until you go too far.1 -
We don't need to see another copy of that WS, and we don't even know if Jack Chapman exists.
No-one needs to try to interpret their desperate rubbish and a canny Judge will see through it. You are taking that template drivel far too seriously.
Please search the forum for Jack Chapman SRA complaint and do an emailed SRA complaint attaching a copy of that WS, this week (please) as these are being investigated this month. I want, and recommend, you to find and read at least TEN threads dealing with that exact WS; you will see what I mean when you do!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
The trouble is whenever I search for Jack Chapman signature it just brings up dozens of posts of you telling people to search for Jack Chapman signature and then I get stuck in an endless loop
0 -
The search facility is broken thanks to a recent system upgrade.
Forget what the scammers say about justifying the add on scam amounts to the original scam amount. Use the information from the Abuse of Process thread where the Beavis case and the PoFA 2012 both say the maximum amount that can be claimed is that of the original PCN.
They cannot claim the extra £60 is for debt recovery and admin costs because it is already included in the original £100.
If they are claiming the £60 IS for debt recovery and admin costs, then what is the original £100 for because the Beavis judges and the PoFA both say that is already included.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Do the search again on Google instead. I have resorted to having to Google to find posts I know exist here.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Hi all,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I don't think I explained myself very well. I'm pretty confident that I have the requisite counter arguments (thanks to you guys) with reference to PoFA, CRA and ParkingEye vs Beavis.
What I'm asking is whether anyone can explain in layman's terms what they are arguing in their WS.
I will feel better prepared for court (next week) if I have a better understanding of their claim
Ta0 -
There is a thread here today where a person has just reported another one and we want you to do the SRA email as well, this week please, to add weight and it gives you something else to say on your WS.
Click on any UKCPM thread, no need to search, just go back slowly about a dozen pages on this forum and click on any/all UKCPM threads and read them, and move on to the next, if they are not a court stage one. The case I saw today is clearly the most recent one you will see, and no link supplied because I have no more idea than you do, whose thread it was! I am telling you it's here, today.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards