Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

Coupon-mad

Much better.

Every paragraph needs a number.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Much better.

Every paragraph needs a number.

OK so I think I finally have vaguely coherent first draft of my WS. Still missing table of contents and exhibits but I feel it will be more efficient to put this together when I have finalised all the page numbers, paragraphs and spacing.

I also think I may be missing an exhibit to use to back up the ´The Fairlie v Fenton Case against this claim´ section?

Would be a huge help if someone could check it all for me. Thank you so much!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FbfUd3suhx-DrNVuMbUWC-pu6-tTLQuX/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

OK, a few things to improve it:

At the end, your statement of truth says 'this defence' which is wrong!

In para 4 remove the phrase about getting a SAR.  Only mention appealing.

Move the HHJ Murch section and also the Fairlie v Fenton section up, so that they come underneath para 5.

Don't call it 'The HHJ Murch judgment' in the sub-heading.  Give it the proper case name.

Go and find the court transcript for Fairlie v Fenton by Googling.

Please copy and paste the wording you have about that Fairlie v Fenton case here in a reply so we can alter it to make sense.  At the moment your words about that case are not quite right because they are relevant to the Harbour Commissioners case and this is slightly different.

1505grandad

"Facts and Sequence of events

3. On xxx, I drove into Morrisons Car Park in xxx, parked my car, bought some lunch and left

shortly after (12 minutes). This was a supermarket car park; such sites are usually free for

customers. The car park signage did not clearly display any contract with the Claimant nor

did it clearly show where the ticket machine was located. Exhibits"

However in para 24 you state:-

""And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top.

None of this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I stood at the machine,

which their evidence shows doesn't warn me about a possible £100 charge. Court of Appeal

authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a

charge, include:"

KeithP

Still too many letter 'e' in this heading...
The HHJ Murch Judgement against this Claim

1505grandad

Is this relevant to your case?:-

"33. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the bottom of the signs where the disputed term

about paying after 6pm is stated. Therefore, that term and the licence to park is made by the

principal, ABC Parking Solutions."

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

OK, a few things to improve it:

At the end, your statement of truth days 'this defence' which is wrong!

In para 4 remove the phrase about getting a SAR.  Only mention appealing.

Move the HHJ Murch section and also the Fairlie v Fenton section up, so that they come underneath para 5.

Don't call it 'The HHJ Murch judgment' in the sub-heading.  Give it the proper case name.

Go and find the court transcript for Fairlie v Fenton by Googling.

Please copy and paste the wording you have about that Fairlie v Fenton case here in a reply so we can alter it to make sense.  At the moment your words about that case are not quite right because they are relevant to the Harbour Commissioners case and this is slightly different.

Great stuff, seems I´m not a million miles away.

Slightly updated the F v F wording here, is this good enough?

The Fairlie v Fenton Case against this claim

31. The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol' and it is clear that their limited function is to facilitate the terms offered by the principal, including 'contact the DVLA' and 'issue PCNs'.  This limited function is confirmed in the Claimant's own Linked In page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-enforcement-ltd where they proclaim 'Civil Enforcement Ltd process and administer Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) on the behalf of UK Small Businesses and Major UK Brands.'

32. Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, there is no sentence in the signage that offers or attempts to create a contract between this Claimant and a driver.  A parking management firm could use wording to make themselves personally liable on the contract and they could make a contractual offer themselves by saying 'by parking at this site you, the driver, are entering into a contract with us' (or words to that effect) but there is no such contract on the signs.  In fact, at no point is a driver told that they are entering into any contractual relationship.

33. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs where the disputed terms are stated. Therefore, those terms and the licence to park is made by the principal, ABC Parking Solutions. 

34. Therefore, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain for another party and collecting monies (the parking fees from the machine) for that party.  The Defendant avers that this Claimant does not retain nor pay VAT on the tariffs and they have no possessory title in this land.  Fatally to their claim, the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the driver, at all.  The Claimant is put to strict proof if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant.

Castle

ABC Parking Solutions Ltd changed its name to ABC Facilities Management Ltd in November 2019 and was struck off in April 2023.
ABC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LTD filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

OK, a few things to improve it:

At the end, your statement of truth days 'this defence' which is wrong!

In para 4 remove the phrase about getting a SAR.  Only mention appealing.

Move the HHJ Murch section and also the Fairlie v Fenton section up, so that they come underneath para 5.

Don't call it 'The HHJ Murch judgment' in the sub-heading.  Give it the proper case name.

Go and find the court transcript for Fairlie v Fenton by Googling.

Please copy and paste the wording you have about that Fairlie v Fenton case here in a reply so we can alter it to make sense.  At the moment your words about that case are not quite right because they are relevant to the Harbour Commissioners case and this is slightly different.

Great stuff, seems I´m not a million miles away.

Slightly updated the F v F wording here, is this good enough?

The Fairlie v Fenton Case against this claim

31. The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol' and it is clear that their limited function is to facilitate the terms offered by the principal, including 'contact the DVLA' and 'issue PCNs'.  This limited function is confirmed in the Claimant's own Linked In page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-enforcement-ltd where they proclaim 'Civil Enforcement Ltd process and administer Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) on the behalf of UK Small Businesses and Major UK Brands.'

32. Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, there is no sentence in the signage that offers or attempts to create a contract between this Claimant and a driver.  A parking management firm could use wording to make themselves personally liable on the contract and they could make a contractual offer themselves by saying 'by parking at this site you, the driver, are entering into a contract with us' (or words to that effect) but there is no such contract on the signs.  In fact, at no point is a driver told that they are entering into any contractual relationship.

33. 'ABC Parking Solutions' is written at the top of the signs where the disputed terms are stated. Therefore, those terms and the licence to park is made by the principal, ABC Parking Solutions. 

34. Therefore, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain for another party and collecting monies (the parking fees from the machine) for that party.  The Defendant avers that this Claimant does not retain nor pay VAT on the tariffs and they have no possessory title in this land.  Fatally to their claim, the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the driver, at all.  The Claimant is put to strict proof if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant.

vincentvega27

Castle said:

ABC Parking Solutions Ltd changed its name to ABC Facilities Management Ltd in November 2019 and was struck off in April 2023.
ABC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LTD filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)

Thank you. How can I use this in my favour?