Court Papers received - draft abuse of process defence

Coupon-mad

Looks very organised.  Use that as your first crib sheet when the hearing starts but forget the first strike out request and just go with the fact they (indisputably) breached the deadline set by the court, in an Order that didn't just say 'may' it said 'will'.

MC12345

“Will” do   

MC12345

Hey CouponMad, I foudn this today, have you seen it ? This is the case I was referring to, it would seem you even get a personal mention:

https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/news/bw-legal-successfully-appeals-strike-out-orders-on-claims-incorporating-contractual-debt-recovery-costs-for-the-private-parking-industry/

excert

Over the past few years, we have seen a significant number of consumers being accompanied by Lay Representatives at hearings. Familiar names such as Lamilad, CouponMad, Bargepole who are regular “forumites”, also represent consumers at court hearings as a Lay Representative. If you read their posts, you might think they are qualified solicitors or barristers, but the reality is that it is unlikely that they have any recognisable legal qualification, including the right to practice law or conduct litigation on behalf of consumers. Some of these Lay Representatives are also charging fees to consumers for representing them in court, or assisting with drafting documents such as defences or skeleton arguments etc. This begs the very important question – if the Lay Representative has acted negligently, whether by providing incorrect advice, making factually incorrect/irrelevant submissions at court, or simply misrepresenting the consumer’s position, what recourse does the consumer have against the Lay Representative? They cannot complain to the Law Society, the SRA or the Bar Council because Lay Representatives aren’t regulated. They certainly do not have professional indemnity insurance to be able to indemnify the consumer. The only option would be for the consumer to initiate legal proceedings against the Lay Representative or apply to the court to seek a costs order (which would be rare).

These “forumites” seemingly boast about their wins at court, but yet, you see very little about the cases they have lost. There are numerous posts about the whole “abuse of process” argument in relation to private parking companies and their solicitors adding debt recovery costs to the claim, however, in light of the appeal decision by  HHJ Parkes QC, the “advice” that the likes of CouponMad etc have been giving consumers has been
ill-founded, and ultimately found wanting. Despite this, certain individuals have been placed on panels for their input (representing a consumer view). Whilst they may think that they are “fighting the good fight” for consumers, ultimately, where is the accountability? The consumer could be faced with a scenario where not only do they have to pay the parking charge, court fees, solicitors costs, interest etc, but also the Lay Representative’s costs. Will the Lay Representatives be refunding the fees to the customers in light of this decision?

Redx

Discussed to death on here at the time and yes she knows , as do dozens of others

twhitehousescat

that is one "worried " company , having to try and discredit opponant that won 

MC12345

Redx said:

Discussed to death on here at the time and yes she knows , as do dozens of others

Thanks, just doing a little further reading and research prior to Friday hearing, So this appeal was simply agaisnt "striking out" on the papers mroe than anything ?

Redx

MC12345 said:

Redx said:

Discussed to death on here at the time and yes she knows , as do dozens of others

Thanks, just doing a little further reading and research prior to Friday hearing, So this appeal was simply agaisnt "striking out" on the papers mroe than anything ?

Correct , it means a judge must consider the particulars of claim in full , before making a decision , so no knee jerk computer says no strike out , but consider all aspects , meaning they may decide to strike out the added charges but hear the core arguments

Coupon mad then changed the defence template accordingly

You will also notice that they did not appeal the case coupon mad was representing , because that would have triggered a robust opposition

MC12345

Thanks. In the event the judge decides this case has legs  despite all the defences files one thing we haven’t really discussed is that my partner did pay, but the automated system allocated the payment to her old vrn despite her being sure she had updated the automated system on the phone with new one (but can’t prove that). but has receipt for payment on bank statement and letter from old car owner saying they were not in the carpark that day. They contest it is her responsibility to put the correct details in - what are thoughts on this please ? 

Redx

Only any good if that person submits a witness statement and appears in court to substantiate the account

They acted in good faith , if the circumstances were beyond their immediate control and if the claimant did receive the money for the parking contract then good intentions may bear fruit

So not bilking

MC12345

Thanks, we added the email from the new owner of the old car as a witness statement exhibit to our defence, but noted it should have been their own witness statement. Thanks about the good intention thing.