Small claims court - general advice please

Coupon-mad

Even if you only have time to do the half hour MHCLG Q&A that will be good. 

Tell them about your personal experience of ATAs and PPCs...your own words in response to their questions, but evidence and real experience of something is more compelling.

Umkomaas

Hi Ukmonass

Oh dear me, that's the worst name mangling I've yet seen! And a good few have had a go! 😩 😄

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkomaas

firmaten

Umkomaas - my apologies - yes that is bad.

At least "Ukmonass" does not have some other meaning which I feared when reading it again.

Umkomaas

firmaten said:

Umkomaas - my apologies - yes that is bad.

At least "Ukmonass" does not have some other meaning which I feared when reading it again.

Mais oui, á la Français, á la Jim Royle - UK My *ss? 😮. 

Thick skin is always handy in SA! 😁 🇿🇦

firmaten

Hi All,

So I got my SAR back, some audit of the events included in addition to NTK etc. Some might be interested to know that Excel did a “bulk update” of cases to Elms Legal around May 2019 and began to pursue it in 2020. Also note that BWLegal were initially engaged.

I have now been given a court date for early next year and in the process of drafting the WS. I note that a recent case (for this carpark) has unfortunately been lost on the grounds of trespass:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6075311/elms-legal-excel-parking-chorlton-lost/p14

My defence, was on the grounds of unclear signage (as per previous posts the template defence was used).

• The sign:

• It sounds a bit stupid to say looking at this now, but two people took one look at this – and interpreted this as Monday to Saturday between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 that these charges apply – we missed the 50p charge for 0-13 hours. Bare in mind, we parked there around 19:00 it was a dark miserable night and I don’t recollect (3 years ago) the lighting being that great (though have no evidence for this).

• Part of the reason this confusion arose is that other signs from the same company articulate the charges in a different ways – it’s almost as if they are trying to make it deliberately confusing 😊. Some examples:

Questions:

• Is this line of defence a non starter/pointless?
• The additional £60 charge is included in the template defence – but seems to have been disregarded in a different case referenced above (at the same car park). Is there anything additional I can do to prepare for this?
• The time to submit the WS is close, but I have not received anything from Elm’s yet – could this be a deliberate ploy on their account – to wait until what is mentioned in my WS - so to speak?
• My intention is to submit these via email - the court papers seems to say that is fine, just wondering if that's a issue for other parties i.e. claimant.

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

• Is this line of defence a non starter/pointless? No.
• The additional £60 charge is included in the template defence – but seems to have been disregarded in a different case referenced above (at the same car park). Is there anything additional I can do to prepare for this? Use the example WS which covers the Semark-Jullien case and cites ParkingEye v Somerfield and gen up so you understand what's being said about both.
• The time to submit the WS is close, but I have not received anything from Elm’s yet – could this be a deliberate ploy on their account – to wait until what is mentioned in my WS - so to speak?  They normally send them with a couple of days to spare.
• My intention is to submit these via email - the court papers seems to say that is fine, just wondering if that's a issue for other parties i.e. claimant.  It's fine to do that during 2020 (due to COVID), and if the email acknowledgement says that they don't accept service by email then ignore it because that's unreasonable during these unprecedented times and even the courts have changed stance to allow emailed documents.  So Claimants can too.  Save proof of emailing the documents and preferably email them AT THE SAME TIME to the court (single email to 2 recipients) because VCS/Elms latest tactic at every court claim is to pretend that the Defendant has 'failed to serve their WS & evidence'.  Then they turn to you and put you on the spot.

The sign you showed, doesn't have the £100 parking charge in legible font anywhere, does it?

If Elms start talking about 'trespass' like numpties, point out the claim wasn't pleaded on that basis and VCS are not in possession of the land so cannot argue a claim on the basis of loss or damages flowing from trespass (the landowner could).

firmaten

Thanks for the response Coupon-mad. I'll get cracking with the WS.

On the sign showing £100 - it's not the best picture but it's in the smaller text below "No Change Given". Not exactly clear/legible but it's there. I think there is a salt bin in front of it actually - so you can't get that close to it.

Thanks,

KeithP

firmaten said:

On the sign showing £100 - it's not the best picture but it's in the smaller text below "No Change Given". Not exactly clear/legible but it's there. 

Compare that with prominence of the £85 charge on the Beavis sign...

firmaten

Hi All,

I've now completed my WS (attached). I would really appreciate any feedback you may offer.

I just have a few further questions too:

• Does anyone know the situation if the claimaint fails to serve their WS?

• Should I be sending this WS to the legal company Elms Legal or the Claimant themsleves (Excel / VCS)

I note @Coupon-mad comment:
"If Elms start talking about 'trespass' like numpties, point out the claim wasn't pleaded on that basis and VCS are not in possession of the land so cannot argue a claim on the basis of loss or damages flowing from trespass (the landowner could)."

However, I note this from a similar case - Excel Leasholder WS:

"As the lawful occupier of the site, Excel Parking Services Ltd (the operator) is able to exercise the same rights (with limited exceptions) over the land as the Landowner"

Does this have any bearing on the initial comment?

Many Thanks,

Le_Kirk

You file (on the court) and serve on the claimant, whoever is named as claimant in the box on the original claim form.  If the claimant fails to file and serve their WS, you point this out to the judge at the hearing.