Witness statements: 2 transcripts re parking firms' false 'costs' - Recorder Cohen QC judgment 2021

AnotherForumite

And thing is, as well, the POFA tells us that there is a maximum sum that can be recovered.

You can stick what you want on your signs but you are not getting false costs awarded.

Indeed it does (para 4(5)), that's why any operators that know what they are doing, state the additional charge on their NTK.
And who says they are costs? not me.. it's a core term of the contract, just as the motorist agrees to pay £100 in the event of a 'breach'; they also agree to pay £60/£70 in the event of late payment. 
Before the theorist pipe up, I have tested this in court a court that previously removed this aspect of the claim and prevailed.

fisherjim

AnotherForumite said:

And thing is, as well, the POFA tells us that there is a maximum sum that can be recovered.

You can stick what you want on your signs but you are not getting false costs awarded.

Indeed it does (para 4(5)), that's why any operators that know what they are doing, state the additional charge on their NTK.
And who says they are costs? not me.. it's a core term of the contract, just as the motorist agrees to pay £100 in the event of a 'breach'; they also agree to pay £60/£70 in the event of late payment. 
Before the theorist pipe up, I have tested this in court a court that previously removed this aspect of the claim and prevailed.

What utter cobblers for a start I have never seen a sign saying that an extra £60/£70 will be payable in the event of late payment, and if the signage says we reserve the right to crush you car too it doesn't make it "core to the contract"

AnotherForumite

fisherjim said:

AnotherForumite said:

And thing is, as well, the POFA tells us that there is a maximum sum that can be recovered.

You can stick what you want on your signs but you are not getting false costs awarded.

Indeed it does (para 4(5)), that's why any operators that know what they are doing, state the additional charge on their NTK.
And who says they are costs? not me.. it's a core term of the contract, just as the motorist agrees to pay £100 in the event of a 'breach'; they also agree to pay £60/£70 in the event of late payment. 
Before the theorist pipe up, I have tested this in court a court that previously removed this aspect of the claim and prevailed.

What utter cobblers for a start I have never seen a sign saying that an extra £60/£70 will be payable in the event of late payment, and if the signage says we reserve the right to crush you car too it doesn't make it "core to the contract"

Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist 

D_P_Dance

 Most signs fail to form a contract imo.  They are either too high, too wordy. the print is too small or confusing colours, unlit and exposed to bad wearther.  

A judge earlier this year made these comments

"This signage contains a huge amount of wording, in varying fonts. There are
between 650 ta 700 words, by my rough count. it's well known that the average
reading speed of most adults is aground 200 to 250 words per minute. On the basis
however that this is reading a sign and there are many technical words, it would
probably take an average reader about 3 to 4 minutes to read everything on the
sign. The key part however is found be found some 140 words into the text. It is in the
middle of the sign and it says this, in capitals, then below it is a lower sized font
referring to the £100:"   DJ Harvey

AnotherForumite

D_P_Dance said:

 Most signs fail to form a contract imo.  They are either too high, too wordy. the print is too small or confusing colours, unlit and exposed to bad wearther.  

A judge earlier this year made these comments

"This signage contains a huge amount of wording, in varying fonts. There are
between 650 ta 700 words, by my rough count. it's well known that the average
reading speed of most adults is aground 200 to 250 words per minute. On the basis
however that this is reading a sign and there are many technical words, it would
probably take an average reader about 3 to 4 minutes to read everything on the
sign. The key part however is found be found some 140 words into the text. It is in the
middle of the sign and it says this, in capitals, then below it is a lower sized font
referring to the £100:"   DJ Harvey

Agreed, the majority of signs out there are terrible; especially the larger operators like 'Initial Parking', 'Smart Parking' etc

bargepole

I know that UKPC are one company that states the extra £60 on their signage.

I have represented many defendants in UKPC court cases, and in most of the ones which were dismissed (the majority of them), the Judge has said that they wouldn't have awarded the extra £60 in any event.

In the small number of cases which were lost by the defendants, the Judges did not award the extra £60, just the £100 core charge + court costs.

D_P_Dance

I know that UKPC are one company that states the extra £60 on their signage.

Do they not have to prove that they have incurred these charges? 

Snakes_Belly

D_P_Dance said:

I know that UKPC are one company that states the extra £60 on their signage.

Do they not have to prove that they have incurred these charges? 

I thought so too. They should provide invoices. We know that the debt collectors work on a no collection no fee basis so how can they justify £60.00 for a couple of standard letters. This was covered by Beavis anyway. 

The late payment is covered by interest currently charged on the claim at way over base rate. This is also often removed from the claim by judges.

Coupon-mad

And who says they are costs? not me.. it's a core term of the contract, just as the motorist agrees to pay £100 in the event of a 'breach'; they also agree to pay £60/£70 in the event of late payment. 

So you are now saying it's effectively a Late Payment Surcharge, despite the fact that legislation only relates to company>company contracts and even then, that right is restricted to £40:

So you reckon you can charge an extra £60 that you haven't incurred, contrary to good faith, contrary to the CRA 2015 test of fairness (signage is never exempt even if it contains a price clause) and contrary to the POFA and contrary to case law from two QCs (HHJ Hegarty in Somerfield, and now, Recorder Cohen QC).

Even if you have managed to convince a Judge on the odd occasion (no doubt without a clued up Defendant showing up) luckily you and your ilk of ex-clampers don't have such a credulous and easily-persuaded audience in the Government nowadays and (unlike on Court) I very much doubt that your company has a one-to-one discussion opportunity with the MHCLG to voice what you are telling us here.

Let's see what the final upcoming Public Consultation and final policy decisions bring.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

And who says they are costs? not me.. it's a core term of the contract, just as the motorist agrees to pay £100 in the event of a 'breach'; they also agree to pay £60/£70 in the event of late payment. 

So you are now saying it's effectively a Late Payment Surcharge, despite the fact that legislation only relates to company>company contracts and even then, that right is restricted to £40:

So you reckon you can charge an extra £60 that you haven't incurred, contrary to good faith, contrary to the CRA 2015 test of fairness (signage is never exempt even if it contains a price clause) and contrary to the POFA and contrary to case law from two QCs (HHJ Hegarty in Somerfield, and now, Recorder Cohen QC).

Even if you have managed to convince a Judge on the odd occasion (no doubt without a clued up Defendant showing up) luckily you and your ilk of ex-clampers don't have such a credulous and easily-persuaded audience in the Government nowadays and (unlike on Court) I very much doubt that your company has a one-to-one discussion opportunity with the MHCLG to voice what you are telling us here.

Let's see what the final upcoming Public Consultation and final policy decisions bring.

I don't feel the need to label it as a 'surcharge/admin fee/late payment fee/DR fee etc' as that would open up too many arguments; it is simply a charge that is incurred in the same manner as the £100/£60 is incurred.

And yes, let's see what the outcome of the consultation is; we are all in the same boat with no 'one-to-one' discussions.