Counter charging for PCN at small claims court

Coupon-mad

Remove all this, as they are allowed to add a fixed £50 legal costs:

5.0 Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process
5.1 This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

5.2 In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

5.3 The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

1505grandad

The "fishy" remark is a numerous comment by C-m (I and Le_Kirk found it funny also) on your typo "Carp" in stead of "car":-

"it now transpires that this seeming side-street is in fact a ‘Carp park’.

Sounds a bit fishy?!"

morganbach75

1505grandad said:

The "fishy" remark is a numerous comment by C-m (I and Le_Kirk found it funny also) on your typo "Carp" in stead of "car":-

"it now transpires that this seeming side-street is in fact a ‘Carp park’.

Sounds a bit fishy?!  

  damn fningers. And yes, funny.
Epic-Fail.
Thank you

morganbach75

So if I remove the below sections on costs 5.0-5.4 inclusive (in addition to fish reference) the case appears generally sound?
If so will submit as has been hanging around my neck so to speak for weeks now and would like to see the back of it ...
Help is genuinely appreciated all.

>>
Coupon-mad said:

Remove all this, as they are allowed to add a fixed £50 legal costs:
5.0 Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process
5.1-5.3

Le_Kirk

morganbach75 said:

1505grandad said:

The "fishy" remark is a numerous comment by C-m (I and Le_Kirk found it funny also) on your typo "Carp" in stead of "car":-

"it now transpires that this seeming side-street is in fact a ‘Carp park’.

Sounds a bit fishy?!  

  damn fningers. And yes, funny.
Epic-Fail.
Thank you

Were they fish fingers?

morganbach75

This is the thread that just keeps giving. 
right. If no more ado, I shall submit defence online. Do  just wait to hear if progressed before I do anything else?

KeithP

morganbach75 said:

I shall submit defence online.

No, don't do that.

Instead, re-read my post of 30 September at 5:09PM where it was suggested that you file your Defence by email.

nosferatu1001

You read the newbies thread
Then you read it again
And a third time. Bythast point you will know the next steps. You willalso know not to sit back and wait. If the DQ gets lost in the post, and you fail to realise this and act, you lose. 

morganbach75

Important note for you forum if this is new restriction? The online submission only allows ca. 120 lines which is half the above. Really not much. Going to contact the court to see if they'll accept electronically as prefer to avoid snail-mail...

Le_Kirk

You were told NOT to use the on-line method, follow the advice given by @KeithP and you will be fine.
20 October at 9:00PM <<<<< that is a link, click on it.