Court Papers received - draft abuse of process defence

MC12345

This is the correct link https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

Coupon-mad

Cheers!

I've changed the case citation in my original post they quoted, but I had already provided the correct baiilli link under my sentence!   The person removed all the links when quoting me...

MC12345

Thanks Coupon Mad,

So, I have prepared most of what I think is needed, I appreciate its a bit of a pain in a$$ to look, but wondered if you wouldn't mind casting your eye over this please, I have combined all as one document to make it easier to view (I appreciate the draft order needs to be word, but just bundled it into this bundle for now)

Is there anything else I am missing or you feel is not on point or would help. We'd like to get this sent off to the Judge for consideration, do we need to copy in the claimant also at this stage with this email. Note nothing has been filed or served yet - there has been no official action since the N180.

I have taken all different parts from different threads and tried to incorporate as much relevant stuff as possible.

Many Thanks

Le_Kirk

Try this: -

419. It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.  Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e1ece9988ce281a5154163aecbf09e49?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Coupon-mad

Get rid of the Supplementary WS altogether, it is pure repetition in your case!

1505grandad

para 20  -  typo re date  -  "................ included my old vehicle which was sold on the 14th August 2010 and was not in the car park ..........."

and in para 19

MC12345

Hi Coupon - thanks - when you say ditch the supplemental WS, you mean it and all the appendix to it (attachment below for quick ref as to what this included).



1505grandad - thanks for the typo observations.

Coupon-mad

You don't need to exhibit the CRA as it is statute law.    Refer to it but no need to append it.  A Judge can look it up in his/her book on the spot.

The others you can still append to your main WS and add a line referring briefly to them (not a whole paragraph).  

You don't really need to exhibit Somerfield because it went to Court of Appeal and is easily findable for a Judge but I would exhibit it because IMHO not enough Judges know about it so they need a clear signpost to it.

MC12345

cracking - thanks for the reply

Coupon-mad

Now don't forget to do this as well, all your family and driving friends too, individually please...we NEED you!

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!