4 Year Old PCN with bonus PCN

KeithP

snores said:

KeithP said:

You need to adjust your paragraph 5.
You have blindly copied @Johnersh's guidance to you.

Hi, I left this in because isn't it saying that the PPC didn't say anything about needing to validate parking in their original POC and also on their signs in the carpark? But are now insisting this is the reason for breach in the amended POC? Or can I not refer to the original POC or any carpark signs since it's been 5 years and I don't know what they said back then 

You may be right, but my interpretation is that the words "use the term 'validate' or otherwise specify what is required" are instructions from Johnersh to you.

Jenni_D

Point 7 ... from 5 years ago ...on an unremarkable date 5 years ago.

I'd keep point 5 as it is - it conveys exactly the point you're trying to make (IMHO).

snores

KeithP said:

snores said:

KeithP said:

You need to adjust your paragraph 5.
You have blindly copied @Johnersh's guidance to you.

Hi, I left this in because isn't it saying that the PPC didn't say anything about needing to validate parking in their original POC and also on their signs in the carpark? But are now insisting this is the reason for breach in the amended POC? Or can I not refer to the original POC or any carpark signs since it's been 5 years and I don't know what they said back then 

You may be right, but my interpretation is that the words "use the term 'validate' or otherwise specify what is required" are instructions from Johnersh to you.

Ah okay, I interpreted them as if it was an additional point being made.
I've edited it to read as an additional point now.
5. It is maintained that the Terms of Claimant’s said contract, as stated within their Particulars of Claim, do not state or require the Defendant to validate their parking. It is maintained that the Terms do not use the term 'validate' or otherwise specify what is required, which is stated as the alleged breach of contract at paragraph 2 and 7 of the Particulars of Claim.

snores

I've noticed that I didn't address point 6 and that I lumped in 11,12 and 13 together. I've separated them all out now. Does anyone have any comments on the below?

6.The Claimant avers that the driver of the vehicle accepted the Terms of Claimant’s said contract by parking the vehicle on the land. Paragraph 6 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle on an unremarkable date 5 years ago. The Claimant is attempting to hold the Defendant liable as the driver or keeper (with regards to Paragraph 8) however the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant was also the driver.

11. Paragraph 11 is not admitted. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought. The Defendant believes that the Claimant is artificially inflating the value of the Claim by adding costs which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures, in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

12. Paragraph 12 is not admitted. The Claimant is vaguely alluding to additional costs being incurred however has failed to evidence how such a sum has been calculated. The Defendant avers that an imprecise term such as this would be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Acts (2015).

13. Paragraph 13 is not admitted. The Claimant is put to proof that there is any sum owed, on which interest has been based and calculated.

1505grandad

"5. It is maintained that the Terms of Claimant’s said contract, as stated within their Particulars of Claim, do not state or require the Defendant to validate their parking."

What I am suggesting is that the above states that the D "validates their parking" so that it reads the D was the driver which makes POFA irrelevant in para 7.

However as mentioned before you state driver not known:-

"Para 7  -  "Paragraph 8 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle from 5 years ago."

Would it be more accurate to say that instead of "Defendant" in para 5 state "driver"? (unless I am misunderstanding)

snores

1505grandad said:

"5. It is maintained that the Terms of Claimant’s said contract, as stated within their Particulars of Claim, do not state or require the Defendant to validate their parking."

What I am suggesting is that the above states that the D "validates their parking" so that it reads the D was the driver which makes POFA irrelevant in para 7.

However as mentioned before you state driver not known:-

"Para 7  -  "Paragraph 8 is not admitted nor denied insofar as the Defendant has no recollection of the driver of the vehicle from 5 years ago."

Would it be more accurate to say that instead of "Defendant" in para 5 state "driver"? (unless I am misunderstanding)

Ahhh ok I understand now, I've changed it from defendant to driver!

snores

Can I also add in an extra paragraph referencing POFA Para 4, section 5?
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper" which would be £95 not the £316 they are claiming. Would this make a difference?

Umkomaas

snores said:

Can I also add in an extra paragraph referencing POFA Para 4, section 5?
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper" which would be £95 not the £316 they are claiming. Would this make a difference?

Do you have a full breakdown of the £316?  It's bound to include the court filing fee - £35 (allowable), the capped legal cost - £50 (allowable), an amount of interest - £?? (allowable, but likely to be dismissed/reduced by the Judge), an administration/debt collection/contractual cost - £70 (most Judges are dismissing that, in line with the sentiments expressed by Govt in the - currently stalled - new national Code of Practice)

snores

Umkomaas said:

snores said:

Can I also add in an extra paragraph referencing POFA Para 4, section 5?
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper" which would be £95 not the £316 they are claiming. Would this make a difference?

Do you have a full breakdown of the £316?  It's bound to include the court filing fee - £35 (allowable), the capped legal cost - £50 (allowable), an amount of interest - £?? (allowable, but likely to be dismissed/reduced by the Judge), an administration/debt collection/contractual cost - £70 (most Judges are dismissing that, in line with the sentiments expressed by Govt in the - currently stalled - new national Code of Practice)

Ah yes I see what you mean. These are the costs they've given me:
i. Charge - £95.00
ii. Contractual Costs – £70.00
iii. Interest - £66.16
iv. Court Fee - £35.00
v. Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £50.00  

I'll omit that extra bit then, thank you for clarifying

Jenni_D

i. is allowed
ii. is a made up number and is a cost (to them) that has not been incurred. (Signage back then almost certainly did not allude to liability for any additional contractual costs).
iii. needs to be challenged - it was their decision to delay pursuing this through court so they shouldn't be allowed to accrue interest from the date of the PCN.
iv. is allowed
v. is allowed