Money Claim - Going Court for Private Parking PCN

Jenni_D

You can of course attend the hearing with him as his Lay Representative, This means he also needs to attend but you can speak for him. (Lay Rep Rights of Audience Act).

bergkamp10

Hey everyone, so I managed to get reword the WS with the Excel and Cohen cases included in the abuse of power section. Please give me some feedback as I believe deadline is this afternoon.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qkm0ldfa0qoi1ea/Witness Statement and Exhibits - CEL Redacted - With Excel and Cohen Cases.pdf?dl=0

I do have the following concerns as well and would like some advice about:

1) In the abuse of process section I have kept the bit about Salisbury and subsequent paras (highlighted in red). Kindly let me know if they are totally unnecessary or if there are bits I can keep. 

2)  I am unsure whether to keep the bit in the annexes about the para 198 of the Beavis case as it is specifically talking about overstaying and charging as a deterrent and it seems CEL are claiming that whilst my friend paid, he overstayed so is liable for the £100 charge. I don't want to include it and have it backfire and used against him. It is also highlighted in red.

3) Also in the costs claim, as he is a student and currently not working, I don't know if he is allowed to claim that £95. Additionally the costs relating to the hours of research etc, I believe we have put in many more than 16 hours but kept the number to that amount just to be on the safe side. All highlighted in red.

4) Regarding the printing, postage etc costs, I have kept it also the same. I know there we have the receipt for the signed special delivery that time he posted to CEL but will we have to bring receipts/bank statements for the others? I paid for internet usage and printing at the internet cafe so it'll be on my card in that case rather than his. Highlighted in red.

5) Finally, the para regarding HHJ and the test cases is in @jrhys WS is different to the one in @Coupon-mad post in the Cohen thread. Any advice on whether the version I have included is ok or whether I should replace it with the Excel text from @Coupon-mad

Aside from this any comments or feedback would be appreciated before I get my friend to sign it and we email it to CEL and the Court as I think today is the last day as court is on 21/09/2021.

Thank you everyone.

Coupon-mad

Abuse of power? No.

bergkamp10

Lol sorry, abuse of process. Slip of the tongue but it's correct in the document. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Everything in red should be left in.  

I saw ‘Goggle’ = Google and the horrible Americanism ‘parking lot’ which isn’t English. 

He can’t claim £95 If he’s an unpaid student and can only claim the other costs in a rare case where the claimant has acted unreasonably but try for those anyway.

use the words I gave in my thread about Excel v Wilkinson and also use the transcript link I have there, not the blurred one @jrhys had. 

bergkamp10

Coupon-mad said:

Everything in red should be left in.  

I saw ‘Goggle’ = Google and the horrible Americanism ‘parking lot’ which isn’t English. 

He can’t claim £95 If he’s an unpaid student and can only claim the other costs in a rare case where the claimant has acted unreasonably but try for those anyway.

use the words I gave in my thread about Excel v Wilkinson and also use the transcript link I have there, not the blurred one @jrhys had. 

Thanks @Coupon-mad

So basically instead of using this by @jrhys

"1.       In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as 'debt recovery costs’. The added £70 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-14). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

 

2.         After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''."

We should use this from your Cohen post

"At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''

1505grandad

If not yet filed para 13 states IPC  but CEL are BPA AoS members

bergkamp10

Thanks mate. Unfortunately we already sent it off.

bergkamp10

So my friend had his court today. Told me I should have come with him as they apparently brought like 3 solicitors.

Anyway he's just given me a call saying his defence was rejected by the judge. Apparently they accepted the double recovery point but refused the point about the lack of clear signage with regards to the £100. Apparently she decided that in terms and conditions picture there was a mention of £100 and that he should have read it very carefully. So he's been told to pay the £100. They then apparently asked about court and other costs and were told they could claim £25 for court, £50 for solicitor and some other £25 on top. I asked him what the other £25 was for but he said he didn't know. So yeah, thanks anyways to everyone for their help. Much appreciated guys.

Jenni_D

Sorry to hear he fell foul of judge bingo.  

£100 PCN + £25 filing fee + £25 hearing fee + £50 solicitors costs = £200 judgment.

Make sure he pays it within the ordered timescale to avoid a CCJ being registered.