Minster Baywatch / ANPR claim form received

w12ee3e

Gladstones.

Just lodged my AOS and the total value of the claim is £250. Anyone have experience with these cowboys?

The entrance to the car park is sign posted but many of the bays are not and it's not clear what the terms and conditions were. The in/out equates to 40 minutes. Also the amount (£250) is fairly ludicrous.

I'll go back at some point and take some pictures of the site for my WS.

Currently lodged a SAR against MB, and I don't unfortunately have the original NTK.

Any initial thoughts? I haven't submitted my defence yet.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

w12ee3e

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Friday 12th is when I submitted my AOS. The issue date is the 8th.

Thanks

KeithP

w12ee3e said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Friday 12th is when I submitted my AOS. The issue date is the 8th.

Thanks

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 12th November, you have until 4pm on Friday 10th December 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

w12ee3e

Are they allowed to demand copies of personal documents to fulfil my SAR?

Got a generic one back wanting copies of birth certificates, passports, blah blah

KeithP

w12ee3e said:

Are they allowed to demand copies of personal documents to fulfil my SAR?

Got a generic one back wanting copies of birth certificates, passports, blah blah

Send them a copy of your County Court Claim Form.
That has enough information on it to confirm your name and address - which is all they need.

w12ee3e

KeithP said:

w12ee3e said:

Are they allowed to demand copies of personal documents to fulfil my SAR?

Got a generic one back wanting copies of birth certificates, passports, blah blah

Send them a copy of your County Court Claim Form.
That has enough information on it to confirm your name and address - which is all they need.

They won't budge, sent them that and they're still refusing unless I provide a copy of their requested evidence. Any point following up or should I simply cease and report them to the ICO after a month? More than likely they're trying to stall me and without the original NTK.

Back to the actual claim. I visited the car park and took some pictures. It's incredibly hard to discern the terms and conditions or how long I can enter/exit without being liable to an invoice. Can I get some second opinion please prior to wording up my defence.

D_P_Dance

 the total value of the claim is £250.

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recoveryJudges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recoveryJudges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Coupon-mad

That car park sign says it is managed by Bransby Wilson Ltd and the first sign doesn't even identify MB by name at all.  It does identify Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and says parking fees go to them.  

So there is no evidence nor certainty as to who the alleged parking contract is with, choose any one of three.  Except the Enforcement Company, MB is the only one it can't be!  That's because the signs disclose the principal and it says the car park is 'managed by Bransby Wilson'.

Search the forum for Fairlie v Fenton, an authority mentioned often - and twice by me last week.  MB have no standing to offer the contract or assume the role of creditor in their own right.

w12ee3e

What a goldmine of useful stuff, thanks. I'm going to lean heavily on this whilst preparing my WS.

Before that, am I able to share a copy of my defence here? It's not finished yet but it'll be based off the Beavis template with a few extra points regarding the above.

KeithP

w12ee3e said:

Before that, am I able to share a copy of my defence here? It's not finished yet but it'll be based off the Beavis template with a few extra points regarding the above.

I don't know what you mean by 'the Beavis template'. Are you not using the template Defence in the thread you were directed towards via the NEWBIES thread?

Yes of course you can share your proposed Defence here.