WIN - Another Loss for Gladstones

jaycee31

@Coupon-mad, the judge did say costs should be paid by Claimant.  Nothing so far.

Coupon-mad

OK so I'd read other set aside threads that are past the first hearing and see how they put together a defence, WS and evidence against the PCN, post set aside.

jaycee31

Still nothing from court in respect of documented outcome and next steps with timetable.

Should I expect a new Claim form and would I do a new Acknowledgment of Service?  Or is this just treated as a continuation and so doesn’t apply?

Coupon-mad

Ring the court and ask where the Order and new directions have got to.

jaycee31

Coupon-mad said:

Ring the court and ask where the Order and new directions have got to.

I emailed and got told it hadn't been written up yet.  I asked about the timetable from the Order and got told they aren't trained or authorised to advise on how to proceed next.  About as useful as a chocolate teapot.

jaycee31

Order came in the post this morning.  Judge has diddled me out of £20.  Costs to be paid £255 for N244.  Anything I can do or do I just suck it up?

Umkomaas

Write back to the court, explain the shortfall and ask they refer it to the particular Judge. 

Coupon-mad

Ask for it to be corrected under the 'slip rule' (use that phrase) and attach your proof of paying £275.  And copy in the Claimant's legal team.

jaycee31

Coupon-mad said:

Ask for it to be corrected under the 'slip rule' (use that phrase) and attach your proof of paying £275.  And copy in the Claimant's legal team.

Oops, emailed already, I shall follow it up though.  Thank you 😊

jaycee31

Thinking that my Defence is where I want it to be, after churning through hours of posts on here and various notable examples.  I have used the most recent @Coupon-mad draft template, I think from 4 March.

This is my starting...

3. This defence is in response to Minster Baywatch Limited’s (the Claimant) claim alleging non-payment of the paid parking period and subsequent unpaid Parking Charge Notice from the XXXX at XX:XX, at XXXXX Car Park, XXXXXX.

4. It is admitted that the Defendant was not the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXX in question.  The Defendant was however the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event, but liability is denied.

5. The Defendant confirms that the essence of the defence to this claim is that:

a. They did not breach the terms and conditions of parking.

b. The Claimant's signage did not make it clear what constitutes a “paid parking period” and whether it was supposed to include the time spent:

                                  i.    after entering the site (captured by its ANPR cameras), looking for a space and parking in it;

                                 ii.    locating the signage, walking over and reading the terms and conditions and deciding to accept them;

                                iii.    obtaining sufficient coinage, or selecting the correct bank card and making the payment at an adjacent payment machine or downloading and registering the RingGo app on a mobile phone, selecting the correct parking location and making the correct payment;

                                iv.    upon leaving the site, exiting the space, driving round the car park’s narrow road, queuing to exit, (being recorded via the same ANPR camera) and then driving out onto a busy public highway when a suitable break in the traffic occurred.

6. Even if the Court agrees that the Defendant did breach the terms, the Claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply separate and distinct consideration and grace periods of a minimum 10 minutes at the start and end of each parking period to allow for potential delays in finding a space, exiting the car park and to allow time for drivers to find and read the terms and conditions offered.  The Defendant argues that the alleged 23 minute overstay is within tolerance.

7. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £55 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £55 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

I would welcome feedback please...

Also, am I right in thinking that I should exclude the POFA para as I am not the registered keeper?

I have seen photos and copy of contract from the Claimant's solicitor in their WS, so I was thinking I also need to remove the para content relating to that and the para relating to landowner authority evidence.

Does this make sense please?