PPS / BW Legal Claim - Paid for parking, incorrect Vehicle Registration Number - WON

Chico_talent

Ueah, i know. Its a necessary evil as BPA have a section about incorrect reg and the ICP don't. So PPS will slap that down, i will argue that they sign says their members and so will should follow their CoP, but regardless, i get to show the judge that BPA have recommendations on how to deal with incorrect reg numbers and that can play on his mind. 

Coupon-mad

I agree, and I think it should be left in, along with the observation that the Government sees incorrect reg numbers as something that should not be penalised, too.  Let it all sink in with the Judge as examples of 'best practice' designed to remove the worst conduct (the reason why the 2019 Act sailed through both Houses with full support).

The only reason I wouldn't use those two old cases (was it Heggie and Cargius?) is because they both pre-date Beavis and talk about ''no loss'' which puts them out of date in that respect.  

Chico_talent

Coupon-mad said:

I agree, and I think it should be left in, along with the observation that the Government sees incorrect reg numbers as something that should not be penalised, too.  Let it all sink in with the Judge as examples of 'best practice' designed to remove the worst conduct (the reason why the 2019 Act sailed through both Houses with full support).

The only reason I wouldn't use those two old cases (was it Heggie and Cargius?) is because they both pre-date Beavis and talk about ''no loss'' which puts them out of date in that respect.  

Yeah its heggie where the judge talks about no loss, my intention to use what that judge said but instead of proving no loss to.claimaint, proving the had no legitimate interest, where the parking few had been paid as such this must be a penalty.  Its when the judge states, a car was parked and it was parked for a period the defendant paid for. Just a good one to have. 

And i agree about showing the judge best practices with regards to incorrect VRN's. Is the government recommendation law yet or is it a draft version. Would be good if i can include the government CoP If its ready 

Coupon-mad

It's not ready but was put out for public consultation so the intentions are clear, and published.

Chico_talent

Might add it to my pack then. Even if the C argue that its not in force yet, its still shows the intentions of how incorrect VRN should be treated. 

Coupon-mad

I would, and I think more people should use the draft Specification to demonstrate the 'will of Parliament' in clarifying what should have been good practice and was fudged by the Trade Bodies.

Chico_talent

Hi all, just adding a bit to my WS about the government Parking act.  Can you all have a read through and give me your thoughts.   I do think para 23 maybe a repeat, but it sort of summarises the section

THE GOVERNMENT PARKING (CODE OF PRACTICE) ACT 2019

 

20.         In response to widespread concerns about the poor practice and behaviour of some parking operators, the Government supported the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which was introduced by Sir Greg Knight MP. 

 

21.         Local Government Minister Rishi Sunak MP said:

a.          “Millions of us use private parking car parks every day, but for far too many drivers slapped with unjust fines this largely unregulated industry feels like the Wild West”

b.          “Too often, I hear of awful treatment at the hands of dodgy parking firms, from problems paying for parking to intimidating demands for payment and baffling appeals processes.”

c.          “From today, we’re able to cut out the rogue operators by creating a single Code of Practice and giving drivers greater protection through a new appeals service”.

 

22.         The new Parking Code Enforcement Framework consultation [Exhibit     Tab B, Page     ] sets out, in the Appeals Charter, motorists could be able to appeal their fines and it reduced to a maximum of £20, or cancelled entirely if:

a.          They have made a genuine innocent error, like keying in their number plate incorrectly [Exhibit     Tab B, Page     , Para 50].

 

23.         “Dodgy parking firms” have far too long tried to intimidate and demand unjustified payments from motorist for far too long.  One of the many areas the Governments Code of Practice will deal with is incorrect VRN.  

 

24.         It is clear to see, by the Code of Practice, that an incorrect VRN does not constitute a contractual breech and as such does not require a demand for £100.  In fact, by the Code of Practice it is set at a maximum £20 or cancelled all together. 

Chico_talent

In fact i keep reading it and im thinking of removing para 22, as that seems to read better.  Ill add the exhibit to para 23

Coupon-mad

Yes you may as well exhibit the draft.  Can't hurt and the wording looks OK.

Chico_talent

Okay, my bundle is complete!!!  Just wait for a hearing date.  If i get time i will go through my updated one and redact all my details and repost for other to view but it only has a few updates.

Ive been monitoring MCOL, as i emailed my DQ to them Wednesday last week and its still not listed as submitted.  I have emailed the CCBC on Monday and they have confirmed my DQ has been received and will be processed in due course.

As of today, it is still not listed as received.  The deadline is the 23rd.  DO you think i should give them another chase up email or just post the DQ as to make sure!!!