CCBC Claim form, Deadline and correct defence.

Le_Kirk

Paragraph 5 in the template defence talks about "the exaggerated sum" and just before or just after this is probably the best place.

bloodyccbc

Thanks, will draft something up and share for critique please. 

bloodyccbc

5.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.  

My addition - 

Attention is also brought to a new ruling dated 07 Feb 2022, whereby “Government clamps down on rogue parking firms with new Code of Practice” Minister for Levelling Up, Mr Neil O’Brien MP said: “Private firms issue roughly 22,000 tickets every day, often adopting a system of misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorist. “The new Code of Practice will set out a clear vision with the interest of safe motorist at its heart, while cracking down on the worst offenders who put people in danger and hinder our emergency services from carrying out their duties”

Thoughts please.

Le_Kirk

I would have just made the point that debt collection or admin fees are further being made unclaimable as per the latest rulings.  I would then expect to provide proof in the WS.  Since this is all new and if you have time, I would leave it to others to comment also, particularly @Coupon-mad, although she has been rather busy of late!

bloodyccbc

Thanks @Le_Kirk not lots of time, but hopefully enough. I have until tomorrow 4pm. 

I agree @Coupon-mad has been busy - helping individuals such as me.

I'm very grateful to everyone tbh, this forum has been a great help.

Redx

Bargepole has just posted a proposed paragraph , I suggest that you use his template post , add the details where it says , should be good to go

bloodyccbc

@Redx I have just seen that on another thread, similar situation. 

I shall copy and paste (adding correct details) if @bargepole is happy for me to do so. 

Redx

He wouldn't have posted it in the other thread on a public forum if it wasn't to be used 🤔🤔👍👍

Add your thanks to his post using the thank you button , like I did ( and I don't need it , but thanked him anyway )

bloodyccbc

@bargepole, thank you for posting the recommended addition to paragraph 5.
Can we just discuss about where the figures need to be inserted - i'm just not sure of the correct details to add.

Original PCN amount £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days)
Claim form: states,
CLAIMANT CLAIMS,
1) £170 being the total of the PCN and damages.
2) Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.
3) Cost and Court fees. 

AMOUNT CLAIMED £239.56
COURT FEE £35.00
LEGAL REP. COST £50
TOTAL AMOUNT £324.56

Which of that am I to add to your paragraph please.

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.

bargepole

The original PCN was £100, and they are now claiming £170. So the figure they have added is £70, and it is described as 'damages'.