Should I just pay? (BW Legal - Intent to Proceed after defence submitted)

Coupon-mad

As I said, a strike out is likely to be re-set for a hearing due to the Semark Jullien case, so expect that to happen. 

The things to say are:

(a) the Semark-Jullien appeal DID NOT decide that adding £60 was allowable or even recoverable.  It merely reset that case for a hearing.

(b) the 'debt demand' letters are the very business model of a private parking operation, therefore they can't add costs for the demands, again, on top.  That would be like a plumber providing an estimate of £100 (£40 parts and  £60 labour) then letting a contractor do the labour and adding another £60...

(c) This is the important case to take the Judge to and he/she will want the 'citation' number. Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB 


The Somerfield case is why ParkingEye didn't take any fake 'costs' to the Beavis case 3 years later because HHJ Hegarty had slapped them.

Coupon-mad said:

 so the important thing for the OP to get their head around is to tell the appeal Judge about HHJ Hegarty's words in para 419 of ParkingEye v Somerfield (High Court stage) and to show them to the appeal court, so that the Judge doesn't make a stupid mistake and say something daft about the £60 add-on, even if they reset the case to a hearing, which they probably will when the PPC waves Britannia v Semark-Jullien.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

para 419 - read it out to the Judge.

Alfie_79

Thanks coupon-mad. I really appreciate everything you guys are saying. Below is how they've used the Semark Jullien thing in their appeal.

Uptown_Boy

Point (1) you can easily rebut ... the Beavis case does clearly state that debt recovery costs are incorporated into the original PCN value! Just find the para numbers.

Coupon-mad

93, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis all say the £85 PCN was justified because it included ALL the costs of the operation and a healthy profit and Lord Neuberger said 'but none of this means that ParkingEye could charge whatever they liked'.

Use the plumber analogy - I use it!  I just gave it to you.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT THIS CASE WILL BE RESET FOR A HEARING AND YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING THAT IF THE JUDGE THINKS THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD.  WHAT YOU WANT THE JUDGE TO READ IS SOMERFIELD AT 419, GIVE HIM/HER THE CITATION NUMBER AND PARA.

Alfie_79

Coupon-mad said:

93, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis all say the £85 PCN was justified because it included ALL the costs of the operation and a healthy profit and Lord Neuberger said 'but none of this means that ParkingEye could charge whatever they liked'.

Use the plumber analogy - I use it!  I just gave it to you.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT THIS CASE WILL BE RESET FOR A HEARING AND YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING THAT IF THE JUDGE THINKS THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD.  WHAT YOU WANT THE JUDGE TO READ IS SOMERFIELD AT 419, GIVE HIM/HER THE CITATION NUMBER AND PARA.

I will use it I promise, if given the chance. I'll be sure to let you all know how it went. Call is at 12.15!

Coupon-mad

The reason why you want the Judge to read Somerfield is, it would be great to have a judgment that mentions it.

Alfie_79

Coupon-mad said:

The reason why you want the Judge to read Somerfield is, it would be great to have a judgment that mentions it.

I'll try my best!

beamerguy

And, the code of practice is only for parking companies and does not form a contract for the motorist

The Semark Jullien case/appeal ...... the judge did not approve the £60 add-on and Beavis still applies that the charge includes operational costs

Alfie_79

Ok, so that was brief and confusing. The claimant's rep just reiterated the appeal against the case being struck out and the court agreed to allow it to be set aside for a hearing at some point in the future. Not sure what to make of it all. I guess we'll wait for the next bundle of documents to come through. Didn't get to make any arguments really, just had to confirm I understood what the outcome was. Call lasted about 8 minutes including introductions etc.

Coupon-mad

I expected it to be short, to reinstate the claim, but had hoped you'd get a chance to speak. 

Save Somerfield for the main hearing then, at the end, when you've covered your defence to the PCN and are concluding with the fake added £60.