Excel Parking Letter of Claim

Coupon-mad

Why would you remove the bit that shows how the Beavis case is different?

Bonez257

Jenni_D said:

There are two elements to Beavis that can be helpful:

i) The signs in that case were very clear, easy to read and understand. The signs were also easy to find and were obvious
ii) It was taken as fact that the PCN amount on the signs were inclusive of all costs of business, so the £85 included debt recovery costs (so can be used against the £60+ that gets added at court stage in false debt recovery charges)

I see. So in my case its £100 (instead of £85) + £60 debt collection charge? I just wanna be clear on what i'll have to change

Bonez257

Coupon-mad said:

Why would you remove the bit that shows how the Beavis case is different?

For some reason I thought it didn't apply to my specific case as the template set by @jrhys mentions not noticing signage at all but in my case its there but covered in graffiti or hidden

Coupon-mad

Change the example to make sense for your story.

In Beavis it was found that Barry B did see the signs and they were plentiful, brief and clear to read.  He lost his case and the Judges decided he had accepted a contract to pay £85 and that sum covered the costs and profit of an automated parking regime, so £85 was not a penalty, it was a charge that had commercial justification (so the story goes, in the heads of the rich Supreme Court Judges).

Given that case is the only Supreme Court case, you can see it is vital to distinguish your case from the facts of that case, that a lazy Judge might otherwise assume is a relevant 'authority' that applies to all private parking cases.

Bonez257

12.       Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, the sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant – which was illegible/concealed – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

I got this from the @jrhys template with mentions of the Claimant presenting evidence. I have not received any documents from the claimant regarding my own case detailing "evidence". Is this referring to signage at the car park or actual evidence submitted by the Claimant?

Thanks

Redx

If you are at the WS stage , so is the claimant !  You submit yours to all parties , so do they , by a deadline set by the court order. I would say it was their exhibits.

The WS stage is actually this

The WS plus Exhibits plus the summary costs assessment , 3 items in total , in a bundle

So you will get their evidence ( exhibits ) , but maybe not before you submit yours , although once you do receive their bundle you could submit a supplementary WS to cover this

Or you word it on the basis that you believe to be true having not received any exhibits yet

Coupon-mad

I got this from the @jrhys template with mentions of the Claimant presenting evidence. I have not received any documents from the claimant regarding my own case detailing "evidence". Is this referring to signage at the car park or actual evidence submitted by the Claimant?

That's why it's not a template.  In his case he saw their WS first. Change the wording and talk about what you have seen to make you conclude that the signage is pants (GoogleStreeview from that year?).

Bonez257

UPDATE

I have completed my first draft but have no idea what website i could (other than google drive?) use to create a URL to share on this forum. Can someone recommend one please?

Thanks

Jenni_D

Dropbox perhaps?

Bonez257

Thank you Jenni

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7xqpidx4ttqw11ex7hsm2/BONEZ257-WS.docx?dl=0&rlkey=rj46x7tm4y7wgnu0b0hc8wz7x

I've removed the redacted land owner contract bit as I thought it was irrelevant to my case. Other than that I've uploaded many pictures and tried to detail as much as possible.