CP plus /Moto complaint

mruncleman

Sorry not ignoring the thread. I am away on holiday at the moment so will crack on with that when I get back. I have done the aos and the mcol

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Crack on with drafting the facts to add to the template defence, plus the new changes needed to tell the Judge that the exaggerated costs/damages are banned:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79022308#Comment_79022308

One of dozens of threads in the same position as you right now and the new Code assists you all.

New version of the template defence has been drafted by me on the JD Parking thread.  It includes stuff about the new Code of Practice and why it matters even though the parking event pre-dated it.

mruncleman

Ok I'm back. So what shall I base my defense on? Being tired? Being too tired to register what time I entered and left as it was 3 in the morning. I must have been tired as my house is only 10 minutes further drive but would have only stayed in the services if i was too tired to make it.

The signage there is everywhere, having said that I don't know if that was the case 3 years ago

mruncleman

Defence* ahhh this phone and it's autocorrect

Coupon-mad

New version of the template defence has been edited in March to include the new Code of Practice and is just waiting to be used, top of the forum.

mruncleman

Is this what you mean?


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, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

The Government has clarified that adding 'debt recovery' fees on top of a parking charge is unreasonable and as such, is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new Code says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  The Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal and robust, saying this about existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum that their notorious industry variously describes as damages for debt recovery.  These are banned costs which they have neither paid nor incurred.  The Defendant avers that by continuing to pursue claims including this objectionable sum - when this serial litigator Claimant is indisputably aware due to their 'approved operator' membership of an Accredited Parking Association - that these exaggerated 'costs' are banned by the Government, appears to meet the high bar of wholly unreasonable conduct.

The Defendant believes that knowingly inflated claims such as this case should not be allowed to continue.  The Defendant further observes that this conduct by parking firms operating under their previous Codes of Practice (described by several District Judges as 'self-serving') has caused inflated default judgments and consumer harm on a grand scale in recent years.  The Court is invited to strike out the false 'damages/debt recovery' element at the very least and to consider whether the appropriate sanction may be to strike out the entire claim, in order to signal that the Court shares the Government's view regarding one of the most vexatious, greedy and intimidating elements of some members of the private parking industry's conduct in litigation

Coupon-mad

The entire template defence is edited and ready to use, not just that bit.

 Top of the forum Announcement thread.

mruncleman

Defence sent by email Marked as received on mcol.

Just out of curiosity. Why send the Defence by email and not use the mcol website?

Umkomaas

mruncleman said:

Defence sent by email Marked as received on mcol.

Just out of curiosity. Why send the Defence by email and not use the mcol website?

Because the MCOL portal only allows a minimal number of words, meaning that the forum template would be truncated before it really started. Then, any formatting you've painstakingly applied to your defence will be instantly mangled, leaving the Judge staring at a foreshortened wall of text. 

Not the best way to get him/her on your side!

mruncleman

AHH right. Makes sense. Well template defence sent . Point 3 basically adjusted to state fatigued driver pulling into services at 3.10 am didn't notice unlit signage on an unlit service station carpark.

It's worded better then that. That's just the jist for this forum.