Private Parking Solutions claiming x2 PCNs of £100, x2 £70 admin and £92 interest!

Johnersh

Also if C want you to indemnify them for actual costs incurred, then they need to prove that they have so been incurred. That's the nub.

If that can't prove loss, then what is the uplift?

It can't be for the breach of contract cause that'd be clearly punitive.....

It can't be a liquidated damage as that would need to be a specified amount on the signs....

exresident_privateland

this is all so great folks.. thank you ... will be back on here in a few hours to wrap all this up! 

Le_Kirk

Defense = wrong
Defence = correct
You have used both spellings.

exresident_privateland

Johnersh said:

Also if C want you to indemnify them for actual costs incurred, then they need to prove that they have so been incurred. That's the nub.

If that can't prove loss, then what is the uplift?

It can't be for the breach of contract cause that'd be clearly punitive.....

It can't be a liquidated damage as that would need to be a specified amount on the signs....

So I am no expert (can't you tell?) but I thought I saw somewhere on this forum saying "don't argue no loss" .... is this different to what you are saying? 

exresident_privateland

So @Coupon-mad I didn't send these preceding and succeeding pages before 

exresident_privateland

And this was the sign very very zoomed in - so they do state a lot of their terms and conditions but it's not that good if you can't see it in the first place! 

exresident_privateland

I have looked and looked and canny for the life of me find a transcript of Farlie v Fenton - does anyone have the pdf? 

Johnersh

The "no loss" point arises in connection with the parking itself. Beavis is authority for the proposition that parking turnover has a value (so everyone can park at some point)

The issue with costs is different. If C seeks indemnity (ie. To make them good for costs involved chasing the debt) then they have to prove either that those costs were actually incurred or that the contract permits them to charge that sum. I suggest it may not, but others may disagree.

I still don't see how C expects to enforce a contract where a random has signed the papers not a director of the named company, but again, that may just be me. Some judges are receptive to those points and others aren't. There's rarely a dead cert point. 

exresident_privateland

 Well it's submitted. Thanks ever so much for all your help. I'll keep you updated!

exresident_privateland

Hi there all. 

First of all, thanks again for the help you have offered me in this strange and, admittedly, somewhat stressful world of fighting parking charges.

I said I would update you on the outcome. Unfortunately the judge ruled that the two £100 charges were recoverable. She disallowed the extra x2 £70 "contractual charges" and changed their attempt at getting 8% interest to 2% instead, but with the court fees plus the claimants fixed representation fees (I can't quite remember what they called them but the judge seemed to view them as standard), I will still have to pay this company around £350. 

The judge was in general sympathetic to my case and agreed the signs were small and hard to see. But in the cross examination, the claimants rep pointed out that there were 4 other signs on my route to where I parked. The fact that these signs were also of the "hard to see" variety didn't seem to sway the judge and the fact that it was night when I arrived with poor light conditions didn't either. 

She was not at all amenable to any of the more "technical" defences that seem to be commonly advised on this forum such as lack of landowner authority, or appeals towards no evidence of damages or whether the company have proper legal standing to sue me. She just responded (I am paraphrasing) "well they have obviously been allowed to erect signs everywhere and in absence of any proof to the opposite I have to assume that they do have proper authority."

I don't think she responded at all about the lack of proof of damages or the part about it being the responsibility of the claimant to show how their charges aren't considered penal and if they are not, what they relate to. 

I think with all the time I have spent on this (and of course all the time those helping me have spent), I think next time I get hit with a ticket, no matter how unfair I think it is, I am just going to pay it.

I've found this process way more involved and stressful than I expected. And now knowing what this process really involves, there is no way I would go through it again, even if I thought I had a better chance of winning. It just takes so much time and energy. Even the time spent learning terms and acronyms is significant, let alone getting witness statements together and then having to say the right things in court.

If I was to for a moment consider how much "money" I have lost on trying to fight this case in the form of time spent, even paying the full amount with all the cheeky and unconscionable add-ons wouldn't come close to how much I've lost. And I don't THINK it's because I'm especially slow or dense. I have a PhD in neuroscience.

I mention these further reflections here because I really would want someone else in my position to hear this side of it so that maybe they can make a more informed choice about what route to take. It's of course no one on here's fault that I lost, or that I decided to pursue my case in the first place. But I must say I feel that on this forum there is a general air of "yes, don't worry, just fight it", like it's a total no-brainer to contest these PCNs. Even this "99% of well defended cases win" that I have seen quoted many times on this forum: I'm beginning to wonder where those statistics come from exactly. Looking through the forums I have seen plenty of cases fail at the court stage. So where do these stated results come from? Or is my case and the many others I have seen somehow in this supposed unlucky 1%?

Or is there something else happening? Has there been a change of mood within the courts? is the time passed now in which defendants are able to edit a template of somewhat related technical points and judges sending these companies packing? 

When I spoke to the claimants rep before the trial, he seemed really confident that a) the original parking charge would be allowed and b) the judge probably won't be that impressed my more technical defences. 

Well, maybe he just got lucky, but he was right on both accounts. 

Anyway, I don't want to come across as ungrateful as I really have appreciated all of your help here. I hope hearing the details of my outcome helps inform this community's approach.