Court Claim Defence Guidance - UK Parking Control Ltd

RS2002

Le_Kirk said:

When you add the rest of the template to your defence look out for this (courtesy of @1505grandad who first pointed it out): -

7.  The Claimant ..............  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event.......
         
..... and change #5 to the correct number after you have renumbered your whole defence.

Since you have added two new paragraphs you will have to adjust #5 to #7.

Brilliant, thanks for the heads up! So just a case of shifting all of the numbering down to suit then basically 

Le_Kirk

RS2002 said:

Le_Kirk said:

When you add the rest of the template to your defence look out for this (courtesy of @1505grandad who first pointed it out): -

7.  The Claimant ..............  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event.......
         
..... and change #5 to the correct number after you have renumbered your whole defence.

Since you have added two new paragraphs you will have to adjust #5 to #7.

Brilliant, thanks for the heads up! So just a case of shifting all of the numbering down to suit then basically 

Correct. 

Coupon-mad

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

RS2002

Coupon-mad said:

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you, i've just quickly read the post that @bargepole has put up recently. Good news it seems!  Any suggestions on where and how would be best to incorporate this in to our defences? I was planning to submit mine soon, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

bloodyccbc

RS2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you, i've just quickly read the post that @bargepole has put up recently. Good news it seems!  Any suggestions on where and how would be best to incorporate this in to our defences? I was planning to submit mine soon, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

Hi, I've a similar case to yours, @Le_Kirk has suggested that a note is put in paragraph 5 of the original template.

bargepole

RS2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you, i've just quickly read the post that @bargepole has put up recently. Good news it seems!  Any suggestions on where and how would be best to incorporate this in to our defences? I was planning to submit mine soon, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

I suggest a paragraph as follows:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

RS2002

bargepole said:

RS2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you, i've just quickly read the post that @bargepole has put up recently. Good news it seems!  Any suggestions on where and how would be best to incorporate this in to our defences? I was planning to submit mine soon, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

I suggest a paragraph as follows:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

That's brilliant, thank you! Really helpful. I'll add/tag that on to paragraph 5 

KeithP

RS2002 said:

bargepole said:

RS2002 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And adding in the news about debt recovery 'fees' being banned by the Government in parking cases.  Every Defendant should be picking that up now.

Thank you, i've just quickly read the post that @bargepole has put up recently. Good news it seems!  Any suggestions on where and how would be best to incorporate this in to our defences? I was planning to submit mine soon, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

I suggest a paragraph as follows:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of [INSERT FIGURE HERE], described as '[INSERT DESCRIPTION HERE]', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

That's brilliant, thank you! Really helpful. I'll add/tag that on to paragraph 5 

I suggest you make it a new paragraph - paragraph 6 - as your paragraph 5 is nothing to do with that.

bloodyccbc

I’ve read paragraph 5 several times today and adding @bargepole addition to the end and did feel like it come from nowhere. A new paragraph for that alone would work better I feel. 

RS2002

I understand, that makes sense now you both mention it. I'll add it in as it's own separate paragraph then. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll also need to adjust the numbering again in what would have been paragraph 7 won't I