NCP parking ticket- I won!

ParkingMad

Also renumber your paragraphs now that you have removed one of them. The exhibits should be labelled with the Defendant's initials and a number, for example EM1, EM2, EM3...

ParkingMad

I suggest you email both courts and NCP's solicitors.  Also post or hand deliver a printed version of this small file bundle to the court where it's being held.

Additionally print out the 'sent' email as evidence to prove it went to all three recipients.

You need to get to the court half an hour early (with your own printed exact copy of the bundle) and sign in with the Usher and not talk to NCP's rep outside. 

You also need to number all the paragraphs of the skeleton, plus all pages before you send anything. Post your next draft for comments. 

Eminowa

                                                                                                                          20th February 2022

  

In the County Court at XXXXX

                                                                                                     SKELETON ARGUMENT 

 

In the matter of

XXXXXX v XXXXXX

Claim Number :  XXXXXX

 

I have been advised by the bwlegal on XX/XX/20XX that the listed hearing for this claim

(listed for XXXX/20XX) was vacated and I understand that this is due to the Claimant

discontinuing the claim.

CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." On this basis I would like to request a costs order to be made against the Claimant given that National Car Park has behaved unreasonably by tactically discontinuing this claim 4 working days before the hearing. I ask the Court to treat this letter as an application as contained in CPR r.23.3(2)(b)

The Defendant had significant costs to prepare the Defence and prepare attendance of the hearing and the costs claimed are shown in the attached costs schedule.

 

Schedule 4 of the POFA ( Exhibit q)

POFA paragraph 5 says the right to pursue the keeper ceased to apply when she provided the name and address of the driver

 

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper."

 

Costs assessment.

 

In the County Court at XXXXX

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Hearing Date: XX February 202X

 

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

 

Ordinary Costs

 

 

Further costs for Claimant’s misconduct, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11

Research, preparation and drafting documents (16 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour): £XXX

 

 

 

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED £XXXX

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

 

                                                                

DD1. I was claiming for my cost to prepare the defence and attendance of the hearing as the Defendant, because the claimant knew who was driving from the onset but has refused to transfer liability to the driver and has acted unreasonably from start to finish.

DD2.  The claimant behaviour was not only unreasonable but is also unlawful because the POFA 2012 allows keepers to transfer liability to the driver, yet the claimant had rejected the Defendant email transferring liability, as she was allowed to do.  POFA Schedule 4 is clear and it is unlawful for the claimant to refused to transfer liability (Exhibit x)

DD3. The claimant was suing the wrong person and they knew this from the outset and this meets the high bar for unreasonable conduct by the claimant.

DD4. The claimant had also rejected to transfer liability to the driver and were demanding both the signature of the driver and the defendant which does not conform to schedule 4 of POFA requirements paragraph 5(1a), 5(1b)  (Exhibit a)

DD5. The Claimant acted unreasonably from start to finish and knew all along they were pursuing the keeper unlawfully because she had transferred liability months before

DD6. The Defendant who is still grieving her late mother and still recovering from a major brain operation has suffered and wasted weeks of her life on this and is extremely distressed by what can only be described as a vexatious pursuit of a vulnerable person who the Claimant knew was not liable.  There is no option in POFA to refuse to transfer liability at pre-action stage. (Exhibit a)

Eminowa

Do you want me to put the cost assessment at the below instead after the white note n POFA?

Eminowa

Another one bite the dust. Bwlegal and NCP lost today in court and was award to pay half our cost....which we are very happy about. 
All thanks to parking-mad, coupon-mad and every other members the MSE parking forum. We won't have won on our own. Second court case second win......
There is a spy in this forum. Bcos bwlegal had some of our information from here. 

KeithP

Well done on your win.

The parking companies are known to trawl this forum hoping to catch people out.

It is a public forum. Anyone can read it. Careful what you write.

Umkomaas

Eminowa said:

Another one bite the dust. Bwlegal and NCP lost today in court and was award to pay half our cost....which we are very happy about. 
All thanks to parking-mad, coupon-mad and every other members the MSE parking forum. We won't have won on our own. Second court case second win......
There is a spy in this forum. Bcos bwlegal had some of our information from here. 

Very well done and some relief at last for you. 🥂

When it's all sunk in, would you be good enough to give us some details of how the hearing proceeded, who the Judge was, which court, did the claimant field an advocate, who said what, on what grounds did the Judge find for you. It would be great to read all about it. 👍

Eminowa

When I receive the judgement from the court I would upload it here 

Coupon-mad

Great news!

Unusual case.  Not a hearing about the PCN.

This was a costs hearing after a late discontinuance, and BW Legal sent some pretty intimidating stuff this past week and tried to use the costs hearing that the OP had asked for, to ambush it with their own costs assessment of around a grand.

This sort of anti-consumer aggression is why we do what we do!

So glad you got half your costs awarded for the Claimant's wholly unreasonable conduct.  And that you were brave enough to go to court despite the massive costs they tried to get, hanging over your heads and frightening you.

Shocking that both NCP and BW Legal refused to transfer liability, despite BOTH receiving a letter giving the name and address of the driver (OP tried twice) in 2020 and 2021.

BW Legal replied that they had to have a letter signed by both the keeper and the driver.

Appalling conduct by a supposedly parking law specialist legal firm.

IMHO, the sooner the roboclaim and DRA lot stop pulling the strings of the private parking industry, IMHO the better for consumers and the better for parking operators.

There must be millions in unpaid parking charges going back years that literally millions of ordinary, honest people would have paid if they hadn't been inflated to £160+.  Yet as I see it, the industry was too greedy to see that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.  Their bad! 

Would love a court report about what the rep said and what the Judge said, @Eminowa.  What made you smile, was the Judge all over the POFA point?!

Did the rep try to talk to you in the waiting room and once inside the court room, were you able to speak as a lay rep, no problems?

Eminowa

Coupon-mad said:

Great news!

Unusual case.  Not a hearing about the PCN.

This was a costs hearing after a late discontinuance, and BW Legal sent some pretty intimidating stuff this past week and tried to use the costs hearing that the OP had asked for, to ambush it with their own costs assessment of around a grand.

This sort of anti-consumer aggression is why we do what we do!

So glad you got half your costs awarded for the Claimant's wholly unreasonable conduct.  And that you were brave enough to go to court despite the massive costs they tried to get, hanging over your heads and frightening you.

Shocking that both NCP and BW Legal refused to transfer liability, despite BOTH receiving a letter giving the name and address of the driver (OP tried twice) in 2020 and 2021.

BW Legal replied that they had to have a letter signed by both the keeper and the driver.

Appalling conduct by a supposedly parking law specialist legal firm.

IMHO, the sooner the roboclaim and DRA lot stop pulling the strings of the private parking industry, IMHO the better for consumers and the better for parking operators.

There must be millions in unpaid parking charges going back years that literally millions of ordinary, honest people would have paid if they hadn't been inflated to £160+.  Yet as I see it, the industry was too greedy to see that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.  Their bad! 

Would love a court report about what the rep said and what the Judge said, @Eminowa.  What made you smile, was the Judge all over the POFA point?!

Did the rep try to talk to you in the waiting room and once inside the court room, were you able to speak as a lay rep, no problems?

@coupon-mad. first of all, I want to say a big thank you to people like yourself, parking-mad, Umkomaas, KeithP and others. I requested for our cost to be paid which was granted by the court. I was signed posted by coupon-mad on how to go about the WS. but when it was time, I popped the questions here. unfortunately for us, most of the active members were busy so I resent my first WS back to the court for cost assessment which bwlegal wanted to use to ambush me. until my saviour came in (parking-mad) and assisted me on here about sending a SA.  luckily for us, I think the judge spotted that we have transferred liability twice. so the Judge gave it to bwlegal reps.

Regarding your questions, I would answer them now.

Would love a court report about what the rep said and what the Judge said?

i would be posting a link about the judge on here, before then i will try and answer it on here.
 
so the judge asked bwlegal why NCP didn't transfer liability to the driver twice when we told them who was driving and their serving address. Bwlegal replied saying that we appealed and it was rejected because we said we won't be naming the driver in the appeal. The Judge replied saying he can understand why our appeal failed in the first place, but what he cannot understand is why NCP has refused or why bwlegal didn't inform their client of the names of the driver. bwlegal said he presume that it was because the 28days period had passed.
so the Judge asked bwlegal to read POFA paragraph 4, at first he asked me, me being me, I was reading paragraph 5, thinking that was what the judge wanted me to read. so the judge asked bwlegal to read it, which he did. then the judge asked him if he saw anything about 28days cut off period in it. bwlegal couldn't answer.

 @Eminowa.  What made you smile, was the Judge all over the POFA point?! Yes, the Judge was on about POFA, saying why didn't bwlegal transfer liability only for them to cancel 4 days to hearing, n bwlegal said it was 9 days to hearing and the judge said ok, but already the defendant is ready for hearing. Bwlegal couldn't answer the question. Bwlegal appears to be upset because he was called this morning to do the hearing, so he did it via teams. Bwlegal said that the reason why the case was cancelled was for commercial reasons.
The Judge asked bwlegal what commercial reason it is, bwlegal said he didn't have time to ask NCP over the phone as there wasn't enough time, bwlegal went on to say that he believes the commercial reason was for the benefits of both his client and the defendant. Then the Judge replied saying this must be a very new development on the part of the parking company, that since when did parking company start thinking about the benefits of their customers.

Did the rep try to talk to you in the waiting room and once inside the courtroom?

There was no rep in person, they attended via teams. Bwlegal sent me an email asking me to accepted hearing via teams to avoid the case being adjourned. they sent me the email 10.48 am and asked me to respond before 10 am. I only saw the email at 4 pm that day.

were you able to speak as a lay rep, no problems?

I gave the lay rep to the usher, who gave it to the Judge. when we entered the court, I tried to ask the Judge again, but the Judge and his clerk signalled me to hold on, the Judge started firing BWlegal with questions which he couldn't answer. In the end, the Judge asked us if we have got anything to say, I told him about the SCS law firm BPA article, he said he got that, he then asked us again if there was anything he missed that we wanted to remind him on, we said no. so he gave his judgement. 

it was because bwlegal mentioned in thier closing statement that our defence was a copy and pasted from the internet, bwlegal even said that the Judge must have seen it over n over again with people coming here with copy and paste defence. Hence the Judge awarded us half our cost.

The judge apologises to us for not giving us the opportunity to speak because the hearing is just 30mins. so the whole 30mins the judge used it to drill bwlegal.
it was an interesting hearing, it was like we were guests in the courtroom, it was like we were watching judge Rinders shows on tv. Bwlegal rep was vexed, he kept on saying he didn't know the answers to why liability wasn't transferred. Also, the Judge had to ask bwlegal not to talk over him twice. we couldn't help smiling. to be honest I did take my hardest not to laugh in court. but it was funny.