Please Help - have to submit a defence asap - very poor signage at non pay and display car park

RapidD

Le_Kirk said:

RapidD said:

Update - it's coming along very nicely now, I feel like I've almost finished. I just need to put costs together and make sure I've got the correct case studies in. 

To that end, can I ask....are paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 relevant to my case? Which was free parking for 5 hours on a retail park (but overstayed). I need to do more reading on this but it almost feels like I'm fighting against my own argument.

I've proved that the land owner was not losing money by me being there (doesn't charge other customers for parking) by showing my receipt and that the longer I was there, the more I was paying the establishment. But is 98/193/198 more relevant to car parks in which you pay for tickets?

Thanks again..

Yes, leave it all in, it goes to prove that it is unlawful to try to add "debt admin" costs or whatever they are calling it this week.

Thanks so much for clarifying that @Le_Kirk , as I was about to remove it! Thanks also @Jenni_D for your input. 

I've read up on the Bevis case and I do have a much better understanding of how to construct my argument. I can't argue against 'no legitimate interest' as I see it, unless them adding admin fees enables this argument?? (reminder - I overstayed by 15 minutes in a free parking retail park).

This seems difficult for a newbie due to the fact the Beavis case was in exactly the same circumstances but I do understand that admin fees added may differentiate the argument. My plan is to argue on the basis of inadequate and false signage (which I have extensive evidence of) and was the entire reason I didn't pay in the first place).

I don't suppose there are any templates or examples of people arguing against Beavis case when overstaying in a free car park?

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate it. 

Le_Kirk

The only template is the standard defence template but there are many examples of witness statements if you search the forum.  Winning case usually found by searching for "another one bites the dust" or "AOBTD"

Jenni_D

The other aspect of Beavis (which supported Parking Eye) was that the signage onsite was very clear ... as it is likely that the signage in your case wasn't clear then, again, Beavis helps you.

D_P_Dance

IMO, PE's signage is pants.read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

KeithP

Well, you now have a dilemma.

You now have to decide on which of the following opinions you are going to base your view.

1) do you believe D_P_Dance where he says 'PE signs are pants', or

2) do you take notice of the Supreme Court who thought they were clear?

What a choice. Glad I'm not in your shoes. 

Jenni_D

IME PE signs are pants, and the Beavis case was an exception  

Le_Kirk

KeithP said:

Well, you now have a dilemma.

You now have to decide on which of the following opinions you are going to base your view.

1) do you believe D_P_Dance where he says 'PE signs are pants', or

2) do you take notice of the Supreme Court who thought they were clear?

What a choice. Glad I'm not in your shoes. 

I would suggest that the OP takes a look at the actual signs in the car park, either by a visit or by using Google Maps street view.

RapidD

KeithP said:

Well, you now have a dilemma.

You now have to decide on which of the following opinions you are going to base your view.

1) do you believe D_P_Dance where he says 'PE signs are pants', or

2) do you take notice of the Supreme Court who thought they were clear?

What a choice. Glad I'm not in your shoes. 

Indeed. I think the only mistake I made was not including the judgement from Southampton in my evidence, however I did at least mention that the Beavis case can be distinguished due to the lack of signage and poor quality of it, in addition to double recovery. I included the '3 paragraphs' of the original case for the double recovery argument. I did include a picture of the signage in the Beavis case and a comparison which shows that the PE was much clearer than the claimant in my case. 

To be honest, the lack of signage I've shown and proved in my evidence is so clear to any reasonable person that it would be a travesty if the judge rules in their favour. There's 2 potential signs on entrance, 1 isn't operational as it's a broken electronic one which I've proved, and the other get's blocked behind waiting vehicles at the traffic lights where the entrance is, also proven. That's in addition to virtually none inside the car park and none visible from where the car was parked, also proven. 

So, the biggest danger is that I get tripped up on some kind of legal point but after writing and evidencing the whole document this week, I feel like I've got a reasonably solid understanding of the main points, particularly the Beavis case, which is the biggest danger due to the similar circumstances between myself and Mr Beavis. I'm really regretting not putting the judgement in now. 

Other than that I'm feeling ok about things. 

It's been a bit of a mess filing the WS and evidence, so I hope that doesn't cost me. There was no instructions on the court document to tell me how to file it, so I've emailed it to their email address and also posted it (to court and claimant). But I'm worried about the video evidence I've submitted. It was obviously too big to send via email so I've posted it with a hard copy of my WS/evidence too.

When I phoned the court to ask nobody seemed to know the proper procedure and someone told me I'd need permission from the judge to file video evidence. Really? Surely evidence is evidence? Anyway, I made that request via email, even though I wasn't certain that was the correct procedure due to the lack of instruction. I think the deadline for filing is this weekend so I'll just cross my fingers everything turns out ok in that regard. I haven't heard back from them.

So WS/evidence is done now. Just the hearing to go. Thanks once again for everyone's help. This is a really involved process which I wouldn't have stood a chance with without that help. In fact, it's been much more challenging than I anticipated to this point, standard templates aren't going to win your case (as were sufficient in defence), you've really got to be capable of understanding each point and how to go about making your case. Hopefully I've done that. 

RapidD

Hi again everyone. Wish me luck, my case is tomorrow afternoon! (Friday).I have my crib sheet just about done and I'm feeling good about things.

I've been reading up about the hearing and also brushing up on my legal knowledge on some of the cases I've quoted. 

The hearing is via video and I'm all set up for that. Do I need to be prepared to challenge the claimant's points as they make them? Or will it be more of just presenting my own points when asked?

I've read through the various links provided by @Coupon-mad and others (thanks!)
Can I just clarify I've understood the following legal points please in layman's terms (from your own opinion of course, not legal advice  )

Recorder Cohen - implying that additional costs i.e. £60 is more akin to large companies rather than 'ordinary' defendants (potentially individuals like me) in the small claims track?

Jackson - (Excel vs Wilkinson) - shes's striking out these additional costs due to firms seeking to circumvent CPR 27:14 and breaking consumer credit act. Ok....but do I need to understand why it's circumventing CPR 27:14? I've read about 'unreasonable behaviour' but not sure about this, unless it's simply implying the same of recorder Cohen?

I'm happy about Beavis. Simple lack of signage, clarity of it and double recovery defence. 

Thanks again everyone and I promise to write up the hearing, win or lose. 

Coupon-mad

You've got the Recorder Cohen Judgment  idea wrong.  He clearly concluded that adding costs that are not quantified in the contract is unfair and in breach of the CRA 2015.