Parking Charge Notice now been referred to County Court

Patrickius

Redx said:

Think aBout it , whilst filling in the government consultation ASAP , it closes tomorrow morning , if not done already

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-private-parking-charge-levels-august-2021-please-bookmark-this-thread/p1

I have completed this consultation and have had the biggest rant!  I found it quite therapeutic

Patrickius

Redx said:

PCM UK are not BPA AOS members , so not sure why that is in there or the reference to Parking Eye either 

Parking Eye was a typo. 

So need to replace guff about BPA Code with some guff from CRA15?

Redx

Patrickius said:

Redx said:

PCM UK are not BPA AOS members , so not sure why that is in there or the reference to Parking Eye either 

Parking Eye was a typo. 

So need to replace guff about BPA Code with some guff from CRA15?

And / or the IPC CoP

Patrickius

I have spent a great deal of the bank holiday weekend trying to produce my WS.  Trying to taylor it to my circumstances.

I don’t have a great deal of legal arguments that apply to my case.  Just Grace Periods and Abuse of Process – the quantum.  I can see how after working on this how others and myself can be tempted to just give up and pay the PPC.

I have not been able to add the part about ‘de minimus’ as I don’t really understand it.

I attach a copy of my WS and have already posted a copy of the Claimant’s in a post a few days ago.

https://www.dropbox.com/t/UiBzi864rn5Rwdes

If anyone is able to comment or add any further points it would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you for all the previous and continued advice.  It really is appreciated.

Redx

It is rare to try to argue abuse of process , it's got nothing to do with the core term of a parking case , double recovery yes , the additional spurious debt collector charges , yes , not abuse of process ( I am surprised that you have mentioned this phrase !! )

Dr minimis is about a trivial matter , which when pointed out to a claimant should have resulted in the case being dropped , such as one spurious character in the VRM entered into a machine , taking one extra minute to leave a busy car park etc

In your case you were a valid authorised visitor who read the sign , went to get a visitor permit and came back to display it as soon as you could , but because the site is flats and your sister lives on a high floor it took longer than any grace period allows , meaning that say 20 minutes should be allowed for sites with blocks of flats for example

So the fact that it took longer is de minimis , a trivial matter , because it may be an impossibility for many or all people , unless it was a ground floor flat , the judge included !!

The facts is that you fully complied with the sign at the earliest opportunity and so no breach of contract exists , the CRA 2015 is on the side of the consumer on this

Le_Kirk

Patrickius said:

I have spent a great deal of the bank holiday weekend trying to produce my WS.  Trying to taylor tailor it to my circumstances.

I don’t have a great deal of legal arguments that apply to my case.  Just Grace Periods and Abuse of Process – the quantum.  I can see how after working on this how others and myself can be tempted to just give up and pay the PPC.

I have not been able to add the part about ‘de minimus minimis' as I don’t really understand it.

You have already submitted a defence and that was the time for legal arguments.  The WS is to back up and support your defence with evidence and is a narrative, the story of what happened.  Don't try to introduce new defence points, it will be thrown out (or at least complained about by the claimant).  Just write the story, bearing in mind what @Redx has advised.

Patrickius

Le_Kirk said:

Patrickius said:

I have spent a great deal of the bank holiday weekend trying to produce my WS.  Trying to taylor tailor it to my circumstances.

I don’t have a great deal of legal arguments that apply to my case.  Just Grace Periods and Abuse of Process – the quantum.  I can see how after working on this how others and myself can be tempted to just give up and pay the PPC.

I have not been able to add the part about ‘de minimus minimis' as I don’t really understand it.

You have already submitted a defence and that was the time for legal arguments.  The WS is to back up and support your defence with evidence and is a narrative, the story of what happened.  Don't try to introduce new defence points, it will be thrown out (or at least complained about by the claimant).  Just write the story, bearing in mind what @Redx has advised.

Ok.  Thank you for your response.

Patrickius

Redx said:

It is rare to try to argue abuse of process , it's got nothing to do with the core term of a parking case , double recovery yes , the additional spurious debt collector charges , yes , not abuse of process ( I am surprised that you have mentioned this phrase !! )

Dr minimis is about a trivial matter , which when pointed out to a claimant should have resulted in the case being dropped , such as one spurious character in the VRM entered into a machine , taking one extra minute to leave a busy car park etc

In your case you were a valid authorised visitor who read the sign , went to get a visitor permit and came back to display it as soon as you could , but because the site is flats and your sister lives on a high floor it took longer than any grace period allows , meaning that say 20 minutes should be allowed for sites with blocks of flats for example

So the fact that it took longer is de minimis , a trivial matter , because it may be an impossibility for many or all people , unless it was a ground floor flat , the judge included !!

The facts is that you fully complied with the sign at the earliest opportunity and so no breach of contract exists , the CRA 2015 is on the side of the consumer on this

Thanks for this.  The reason I gave it that the title - Abuse of Process - the quantum was that I had seen it on other witness statements and thought this was the double recovery argument

Redx

You can argue that the double recovery is an abuse of process due to the Wilkinson case and the Recorder Cohen judgment , so add those in and add as exhibits , also add that CRA argument that complying with the contract terms should favour the consumer , that you did your best to comply as soon as possible so it was beyond your control and de minimis , predatory tactics by the claimant

D_P_Dance

Some judges come down hard on abuse, others do not.  In any case, ensure that you MP is aware of it.