UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT

Umkomaas

IloveElephants said:

Coupon-mad said:

Excel v Wilkinson is always an exhibit!

Coupon-mad, where do I find an exhibit for Excel v Wilkinson so I can add it in. Is it an image? Thank you

Look at @aphex007's link to his WS in his post on his thread on 12 June @ 7:26pm.  The detailed judgment is on page 31 onwards. 

Use aphex's WS as a great example for you to follow in developing your own.

1505grandad

"PE v Beavis doesn't really need an exhibit as it was a Supreme Court ruling?"

It also includes the relevant paras re above case which should be in evidence  -  suitably annotated in your WS.

Jenni_D

1505grandad said:

"PE v Beavis doesn't really need an exhibit as it was a Supreme Court ruling?"

It also includes the relevant paras re above case which should be in evidence  -  suitably annotated in your WS.

Only the paras from the Beavis case rather than the whole ruling? (It's a Supreme Court ruling so the transcript is automatically filed AFAIK, which is different from county court transcripts).

Coupon-mad

Only the paragraphs from Beavis, yes.

IloveElephants

Umkomaas said:

IloveElephants said:

Coupon-mad said:

Excel v Wilkinson is always an exhibit!

Coupon-mad, where do I find an exhibit for Excel v Wilkinson so I can add it in. Is it an image? Thank you

Look at @aphex007's link to his WS in his post on his thread on 12 June @ 7:26pm.  The detailed judgment is on page 31 onwards. 

Use aphex's WS as a great example for you to follow in developing your own.

Thank you Umkomaas, that is a great example, I have copied andpasted the excel v wilkinson case in my defence. Please take a look. Thank you so much

IloveElephants

1505grandad said:

"PE v Beavis doesn't really need an exhibit as it was a Supreme Court ruling?"

It also includes the relevant paras re above case which should be in evidence  -  suitably annotated in your WS.

hI Grandad, thanks for helping me. Do you mean this paragraph from my WS?

This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.


Do I paste this in my WS?

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

Only the paragraphs from Beavis, yes.

Coupon-mad said:

Only the paragraphs from Beavis, yes.

Thanks Coupon-mad

Do you mean I paste this paragrpha in my WS?


This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.


I have made changes by adding in Exhibit excel v wilkinson to my WS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cU8lqf4dNBrMiab-lxZCYuRFJNJ-P1C/edit



Thank you everyone

IloveElephants

Hi Everyone, I have made the necessary changes to my WS, 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cU8lqf4dNBrMiab-lxZCYuRFJNJ-P1C/edit

Please tell me where the errors are and what is lacking. I will include contents page last.  Thank you to everyone. 

1505grandad

Can you please refer to the WS example you have been directed to (WS by aphex007) and carefully check the exhibits and the order of the WS paras  -  for instance:-

"38. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. (Exhibit 08 Excel v Wilkinson)"

You should not be using that exhibit  -  it is the paras from the Beavis Supreme court which you will see in the WS example.

You also state (repeat of above):-

"11. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. Nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case , the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests (See Exhibit 06 for paragraphs of ParkingEye v Beavis)."

Exhibit 6 you have shown is the yellow and black PE sign.

I respectfully suggest you make sure your WS is as correct as possible.

IloveElephants

1505grandad said:

Can you please refer to the WS example you have been directed to (WS by aphex007) and carefully check the exhibits and the order of the WS paras  -  for instance:-

"38. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. (Exhibit 08 Excel v Wilkinson)"

You should not be using that exhibit  -  it is the paras from the Beavis Supreme court which you will see in the WS example.

You also state (repeat of above):-

"11. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. Nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case , the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests (See Exhibit 06 for paragraphs of ParkingEye v Beavis)."

Exhibit 6 you have shown is the yellow and black PE sign.

I respectfully suggest you make sure your WS is as correct as possible.

Hi Granddad, thanks for helping me out:

 

I have pasted this quote in from Aphex007  in my para 38 highlighted in blue.  "Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim mustfail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, "deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach" See exhibit 09


As for My paragraph 11 - I have used Exhibit "TheParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015] UKSC 67 - Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198" and as you pointed out not the yellow and black PE Sign. See Exhibit 09


Please tell me if this is correct now? 

Thank you so much for helping me to correct this.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cU8lqf4dNBrMiab-lxZCYuRFJNJ-P1C/edit