National Parking Enforcement - County Court Claim

milo_2020

Ok thats good, somewhat.

Yeah the sign is clear I suppose, but the point being is that in their WS they state that to not waste the judges time only the points in theirs and my WS should be discussed and in every single point they refer to the claim being the driver went into the shop. The driver remained in the car the entire time.... So is that not a technicality?

It reads more thrown together at last minute than mine, if anything its copy and paste from other cases as the sentences they pulled out of the defence to argue all were referencing the passenger but they answered with the driver e.g. the 5 minute time was agreed because the driver left the car. This was in reference to the time spent in the bay. That didn't actually happen..

milo_2020

They have sent a statement of costs (CPR PD44 9.5) which total in excess of 700 pounds to me and the courts now for a total of around 4 hours of work on the case.



Why is the claimant box empty? nothing above is redacted or blanked out that's as I received it lol

Jenni_D

Their costs breakdown is a nonsense and entirely irrelevant - unless the judge for some bizarre reason rules that you have acted unreasonably (which is a very high bar to clear). They've sent this purely to unsettle you.

Is £601.80 the quantum of the claim? How is the £601.80 broken down?

milo_2020

Did think so

Happy holidays all

milo_2020

Just received a trial pack through and again things stand out to me:



I never left the car so point 6.1 is untrue, is my time to argue this now the hearing?

BrownTrout

Common tactic to send a statement of costs like that

Coupon-mad

milo_2020 said:

Just received a trial pack through and again things stand out to me:



I never left the car so point 6.1 is untrue, is my time to argue this now the hearing?

Yes, at the hearing go straight to the Claimant's 'points of dispute' and ask the Judge to find as fact (and you are prepared to swear on oath if required) that you were the driver and:

- did not leave the car or the site
- did not have a fair opportunity to learn of the terms which were not prominent, as the signs were in the Beavis case
- even if the court is unsure about that, no grace period was allowed to enable the driver sufficient time to read the terms and decide whether to stay or go, as their Trade Body Code requires
- the driver was not even aware she and her passenger were being filmed, which also breaches the Trade Body code of practice and the ICO Surveillance Camera Code as well.

milo_2020

There are signs, more clear about ANPR.. so maybe the last point will be disputed heavily?

Should I study the Bevis case in case they reference or ask me about it? What should I do to be more prepared?

Coupon-mad

Look at the Beavis case sign, yellow and black.  Very large letters and uncrowded words, with the parking charge having a border round it.  Google and look at the image and you can see the difference.

You don't need to read the Beavis judgment.

Your case will turn on the signage and whether you breached it and should have seen it and got out and read it.

You do need to prepare (in case the Judge thinks the signs were clear enough) how to argue that the added £60 or £70 is double recovery and running up costs to enhance a claim is against thd PAP.

milo_2020

Ok, for some reason the only clear image of the sign they provided was to me which I then provided to them, probably shouldn't have done that as the trial pack they just sent over is a photocopy of a photocopy of a scan and is unbelievably bad quality.

So re the Beavis case the point is the signs were clear there and not here and this is an example, this is my point regarding that. Cool.

I do wonder why all their main points keep referencing the driver leaving the car even from the appeals process they were told it was the passenger and still to this day and court hearing they are still referencing the offence as the driver left the vehicle. I hope the judge can see that they continuously reference that and state that is the offence, however that is not what they are showing regardless of the signage and contract?