COURT CASE WON - Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd - Alleged not parking in the bays

Coupon-mad

You mention both the BPA CoP and later, the IPC CoP.  They can't both be in play, so remove the one that's wrong.

12 is not right and shoots you in the foot because £160 is the very sum you are objecting to ( the added £60 is unconscionable).  So the last thing you want to be pointing out is that an early letter had the sum of £160 on it, as if that's the core 'debt'!

Remove 13 and 14 which are only suitable for a defence.  This is a WS.

The exhibits 2, 3 and 9 should also be removed.  No need to re-exhibit their crap!

Generally the second half looks very long. Is there repetition of the same point? Can you make it more concise? You don't have to copy the end of the template defence verbatim into a WS and didn't you already have all this second half in your defence anyway?

If so, don't repeat your defence, just have 2 or 3 paragraphs that reiterate the point already made in the defence that the Claimant has not incurred any extra costs for failed debt recovery because the reminder letters are issued on a 'no win no fee' basis and it is double recovery for the solicitors to try to take £60 in addition to £50 legal fees (which the CPRs cap for a reason: to stop abuse by parties with roboclaim solicitors who cannot enrich themselves by £110 for auto-chasing an alleged £100!).  Clearly disproportionate and a more generous level of costs than the courts intend.

Fruitcake

I can't see where you state the claimant has failed to proved the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay and put them to strict proof that the contrary is true.

I would suggest that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" might believe that the kerb mark circled in this imaged defines the edge of a marked bay, and at the bottom of the circle there appears to be the faint remains of a T-bar marking, and therefore there was no breach of contract.

Kpmp54

Coupon-mad said:

You mention both the BPA CoP and later, the IPC CoP.  They can't both be in play, so remove the one that's wrong.

12 is not right and shoots you in the foot because £160 is the very sum you are objecting to ( the added £60 is unconscionable).  So the last thing you want to be pointing out is that an early letter had the sum of £160 on it, as if that's the core 'debt'!

Remove 13 and 14 which are only suitable for a defence.  This is a WS.

The exhibits 2, 3 and 9 should also be removed.  No need to re-exhibit their crap!

Generally the second half looks very long. Is there repetition of the same point? Can you make it more concise? You don't have to copy the end of the template defence verbatim into a WS and didn't you already have all this second half in your defence anyway?

If so, don't repeat your defence, just have 2 or 3 paragraphs that reiterate the point already made in the defence that the Claimant has not incurred any extra costs for failed debt recovery because the reminder letters are issued on a 'no win no fee' basis and it is double recovery for the solicitors to try to take £60 in addition to £50 legal fees (which the CPRs cap for a reason: to stop abuse by parties with roboclaim solicitors who cannot enrich themselves by £110 for auto-chasing an alleged £100!).  Clearly disproportionate and a more generous level of costs than the courts intend.

Updated file can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m85s0vy5qtpstjy/WS Redacted v2.pdf?dl=0

I have removed all of the above as requested within the link and removed Defence repetition - let me know if this is better and in a good position to send?

I've used the latest examples quoted as the backdrop to this WS so hopefully aligned to what has been seen before.

Thank you in advance.

Kpmp54

All - just a quick update. We had the case today and we WON (+£25 of expenses)

I was in and out of the court room in 10 minutes and I barely had to mention anything except to confirm my name!

The case was the 2nd case the judge had heard with the same lawyer / legal assistant relating to parking fines.

He picked up on the point that the Claimant's legal advisor had written the statement and was not present - he mentioned that CPR (27?) was not followed (i.e. they were not present?) and as the evidence presented was poor (quality of photographs were rubbish) he denied the case.

I thought I had a really solid case and wonder if judge had read it and just wanted to get in and out asap!

Anyway - this is the 2nd case I have defended successfully (1 on teams and this face-to-face) and I can assure you it is not as daunting as it may originally seem.

Happy to answer any questions but thank you to everyone that has helped - without you all I would be £1,000's out of pocket.

Umkomaas

Thank you for your update, it is the only way we know if our advice actually works. Well done on seeing off PPS (London) who have joined the court claim gravy train over the past 12 months.  👏

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST. Bye bye PPS (London)!

Coupon-mad

Nicely done!  Great news!

Do stick around and take part in the DLUHC's current final steps:

(a)  'call for evidence' (open now - see the DLUHC IA DISCUSSION thread) then

(b). their final Public Consultation once they are ready to finalise changing the private parking playing field for the better.