Premier Park Ltd Vs Fighter1986

D_P_Dance

 ... not worth a claim for non existent costs and you would be told that was piffling too!

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is certainly worth sending them a LBA.  I would say that,  given the judges comment. a claim might be sudessful.

Coupon-mad

Fighter1986 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.  What's the deadline on that one for your WS and evidence?

I think they've passed. I couldn't get hold of anyone at the trust to provide a witness statement. 

No, I meant YOUR witness statement and evidence that you must provide...as the Claimant has to do the same.  The Court Order says so.  This process is never about just a defence.  Your signed account and your evidence must be filed and served.

Fighter1986

Coupon-mad said:

Fighter1986 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.  What's the deadline on that one for your WS and evidence?

I think they've passed. I couldn't get hold of anyone at the trust to provide a witness statement. 

No, I meant YOUR witness statement and evidence that you must provide...as the Claimant has to do the same.  The Court Order says so.  This process is never about just a defence.  Your signed account and your evidence must be filed and served.

Oh. I didn't provide a WS for the case I won yesterday. I'll send something in tomorrow, hopefully it won't be too late. Hearing isn't for another six or seven weeks. 

Coupon-mad

You know the deadline from your Order, either the one setting the hearing date or the one before, the Notice of Allocation.  You will also have a hint if you might be running late, if the Claimant's WS and evidence has already arrived.

Good examples of a WS and evidence bundle for parking cases are in threads by @Nosy and @jrhys.

 I didn't provide a WS for the case I won yesterday.

You breached a court Order to provide your Ws and evidence by xx date.  My goodness you got lucky.  Some Judges would exclude your defence entirely.  Don't do that again this time.  

Fighter1986

Coupon-mad said:

You know the deadline from your Order, either the one setting the hearing date or the one before, the Notice of Allocation.  You will also have a hint if you might be running late, if the Claimant's WS and evidence has already arrived.

Good examples of a WS and evidence bundle for parking cases are in threads by @Nosy and @jrhys.

 I didn't provide a WS for the case I won yesterday.

You breached a court Order to provide your Ws and evidence by xx date.  My goodness you got lucky.  Some Judges would exclude your defence entirely.  Don't do that again this time.  

I suppose they took the email I'd sent the court in February as my WS and evidence then, I'll do the same for this case first thing tomorrow.

Thank you for clearing up the process! I'm not in the habit of mastering civic court proceeding, I find they're best avoided altogether when possible 😆

Coupon-mad

 I'll do the same for this case first thing tomorrow.

No. A proper bundle signed and dated under a statement of truth, emailed to both the local court and the Claimant's solicitors.  Might take you tomorrow to get right after reading examples but please don't rush it if the Order says the deadline is the usual 14 days before.  You haven't told us..

Fighter1986

Thank you 🙂

Fighter1986

Fighter1986 said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's not worth a claim for non existent costs and you would be told that was piffling too!

Well done to the OP.  Court can indeed be entertaining and exhilarating,

ANOTHER PREMIER PARK ONE BITES THE DUST!

The case was heard via Teams, I participated from the comfort of my lounge so I wouldn't even be able to claim travel costs. That, and by pure happenchance I'm between contracts at the moment anyway, start my next on Monday so I can't even say I've lost any income or been forced to use leave allowance etc. 

I really don't mind. The whole process has been worth the entertainment value alone.

The other ticket I have a hearing for in January is going to be a tougher win.

I was parked in a yellow hatched area right outside the entrance to a hospital unit doing my duty as an NHS Field Engineer delivering critical medical electronic equiptment in torrential rain. 

The receptionist had given me permission and my NHS ID was left in my windscreen, the claimants having a photo of the same.

No one was inconvenienced or prevented from entering / exiting the building and had I parked further away, the rain could have damaged medical electronics. 

it's gonna be a tougher argue. This one is v. First Parking LLP... 

...My defence is logged thus:

"The claimant has alleged that I entered into a contract with their
firm to be potentially liable for services rendered by choosing to
park on site at the location mentioned in their papers however no
such contract exist.

No agreement exists, express or implied between myself and the
claimant for services rendered or other liabilities.

In addition, the alleged parking infaction was in fact a delivery
of sensitive essential medical IT hardware during a rainstorm.

I was at the time employed as an Installation Engineer for Devon
Partnership NHS trust, making a devlivery and performing
installation of IT hardware. I had to park very close to the
entrace to the building in question in order to prevent damage to
the IT equiptment. I had consent of the receptionist on site at
time to park where I parked. I left staff ID in my windscreen
which the claimant photographed.

I find it in very poor taste that any body would attempt to sue an
NHS Professional for acting in their line of duty to deliver
essential supplies to a healthcare provider in a manner which
ensures said equiptment is not damaged by adverse weather
conditions.

I have already written to the claimant explaining the below:

'Further to my perusal of the attached evidence I wish to clarify
several points:

1. I arrived on site as per my duties as an NHS Field Engineer to
install and replace critical medical equipment
2. I was advised by reception that I would be alright to leave my
car directly outside to unload
3. The vehicle had to be parked this close to the entrance to
ensure sensitive medical equipment was not damaged by the
prevailing rain present on the day and visible in the photos you
sent
4. There was no PCN on my car when I returned to it; either it had
been removed or washed / blown away
5. I never received a follow up letter or was I given any
opportunity to dispute a PCN until I received a letter from DCB
legal a week or so ago
6. Had I seen a PCN on my vehicle upon my return I would have
dealt with it on the day
7. Had I received anything through the post sooner, I would have
dealt with it sooner
8. No contract exists between you and I for the additional
services you have chosen to render and subsequently added to my
alleged balance
Taking in to account all of the above, I refute any liability for
the alleged £130 balance you claim I owe.

I now consider the matter closed'"

In addition to the above I've submitted the following to the court:

"To Whom It May Concern,

 

With reference to the above case which is being heard on <Redacted> 2022, I as the defendant in said case wish to submit for the courts perusal the following evidence / witness statement in addition to my defence already filed:

 

To further expand on Point 8 in my defence, where I stated “No contract exists between you and I for the additional services you have chosen to render and subsequently added to my alleged balance” (“You” being the Claimant), I wish to draw the courts attention to the following case:

 

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''.

 

The findings in this case can be read in full as per the attached.

 

As per my defence, all other facts already stated and put forward to the court remain as originally stated.

 

Just as per the referenced case, the claimant in this case has added additional and separate service charges to the alleged debt separate to the PCN charges – services rendered which I did not solicit, and did not enter into a contract agreeing to be held liable for.

 

I further deny that the sum claimed is recoverable as it is set above a level which is above the costs of recovery or operating the scheme.

 

I believe the sum claimed to be unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

I believe that the Letter Before Action was non-compliant with the pre-action protocol and that the particulars of the claim are embarrassing, incoherent and lacking detail.

 

I attempted to obtain a copy of the LBA for the courts perusal, however when I reached out to the claimant, issuing them with a Subject Access Request as per the Data Protection Act, they failed to include a copy of the LBA.

 

I have attached for your perusal a copy of the email which the Claimant me in response to my SAR, clearly lacking a copy of the LBA. The password for the PDF attached to said email is <Redacted>

 

Due to the above, it is my stance that president has already been set in this case which renders this claim a proceeding with (Quote D.J. Clair Jackson) “an improper collateral purpose”, circumventing CPR 27.14, as well as a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

I herby state that the above is truthful and factual to the best of my knowledge.

 

Kind Regards,"

Fruitcake

Your defence reads like a witness statement. It should have been written in the third person.

What followed is not a witness statemen.
It doesn't include your evidence and exhibits.
The statement of truth is completely wrong.

I fear it could be thrown out in its entirety. A judge may be les forgiving than the one in your previous case.

Coupon-mad

That is nothing like the WS bundles by @Nosy or @jrhys and the statement of truth is wrong too.

Don't send that.

An email like that IS NOT complying with the Order of the court and misses all the important stuff we always put.

You still haven't said what the Notice of Allocation and the Hearing Order said was your WS deadline?