County court proceedings

Coupon-mad

Ladylaine said:

Perfect many thanks for all your help 😊 will let you know how I get on

Hang about! Plenty of advice to come as we all muck in here.

Please read the new Code of Practice and add into your email to Gladstones the wording I suggested here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013491/#Comment_79013491

Ladylaine

Oh thank you, you are all so helpful.
will keep you posted 😊

Coupon-mad

Go on, did you add it all?  We'd love to see Gladstones' reply!

D_P_Dance

Amount due £170

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 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 £60 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 transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, m They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thsee additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Ladylaine

Hi Guys,
just thought would share the letter I sent to Gladstones 

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you regarding the letter I received from yourselves dated 1st February 2022. Which I received on the 14th February 2022 relating to an alleged debt dated 24th December 2018.

The alleged debt is robustly and genuinely disputed. I would therefore request you put a hold on any further proceedings while I seek legal advice. 

I would also advise you to contact your client Private Parking Solutions and ask them about the mitigating circumstances as per my appeal at the time:

"Fresh measures proposed in the new Code and Framework include the creation of a mandatory single Appeals Service and Appeals Charter for motorists to turn to if they are unfairly fined. Under options set out in the Appeals Charter, motorists could be able to appeal their fine and see it cancelled entirely if:

• they have a mitigating reason for overstaying their parking ticket such as their vehicle breaking down
• they have made a genuine innocent error, like keying in a digit in their number plate incorrectly
• they have a valid ticket, permit or Blue Badge but failed to display it correctly
• Government clamps down on rogue parking firms with new Code of Practice
  
  
  

I would also like to draw your your attention to the Foreword in the new code of practice which banned false Debt Recovery / Admin Fees! Just in case you were unaware.

So I would ask you to cease any further action in this case.

I have also sent a copy of this email in hard copy to your offices.