Claim form defence.

Coupon-mad

Theirs is just a standard DCBLegal WS.

More important is that you do your bundle!

Alfieb93

From google maps 6 months after the charge. Entrance to carpark has no signs. I will use this in my witness statement. The circles are the signs theyre using in their evidence.

How am I going to get around the last part of this paragraph about breaching the terms twice?



My defence is that I was loading and I didn't see the signs.

They're saying I was parked and not loading. 

From the claimants witness statement you cant even read the sign in their photo.

I'm starting to think maybe I should try and settle I don't have 600 to throw away...

Do I have a case do you think?

Johnersh

Not looked at this in detail but there are some issues here:

1. The photos don't show an open boot etc. Was loading really going on during both dates and at night?

2. That is a copy of the sign, not the sign (check them - the signs at the time may have been different) but unusually it expressly states the debt recovery fee, which *may* make it more likely to be recovered, but ought to restrict them to £160 each. Is it additional court fees and interest that get you to £600?

Other points:

a. The moment one enters the land without a permit there is already a breach. There is no element of the contract that you could actually comply with/perform. It is arguably impossible to perform, because the parking company did not supply the o/p with a permit to display and (presumably) would not have given permits to non tenants. 

b. It is ridiculous to suggest that defending a claim is unreasonable conduct. 

c. Chapelair v Kumari concerned a lease where all the parties had received the benefit of legal advice prior to entering the contract. This is a quite different proposition. Even so, that judgment sets out clearly that a contract term cannot be used to recover sums greater than the costs actually incurred. So, for which one might venture, where is the receipts for the debt recovery service used/actual charges. The court fees are claimed separately, so how many automated letters are we talking here? That is standard overhead, probably.

d. Interest has presumably been charged on the sums, but note that the sums were incurred on differing dates. The calculation will almost certainly be wrong. Furthermore, it was Cs decision to commence proceedings at the end of the limitation period. They could have done so sooner and avoided that accrual.

They will fight this because the sums are large. It's up to the o/p what to do, since there are always litigation risks. 

Coupon-mad

Alfieb93 said:

How am I going to get around the last part of this paragraph about breaching the terms twice?



My defence is that I was loading and I didn't see the signs.

They're saying I was parked and not loading. 

From the claimants witness statement you cant even read the sign in their photo.

I'm starting to think maybe I should try and settle I don't have 600 to throw away...

Do I have a case d

Do not try to settle.

Even if you lost at the hearing (and we don't expect you to) almost certainly the interest and both fake £60/£70 'DRA fees/damages' would be removed, which strips more than a couple of hundred straight off this inflated claim!

And with multi-PCN cases it's perfectly possible that the Judge disallows one PCN even if they are persuaded to allow a second.

Either way this is nowhere near £600! 

DO NOT TRY TO SETTLE
Trust that you will get a Judge who is not stupid.

You can also show their witness is being untruthful. There are no entrance signs.

That's a breach of the Code of Practice and means that you were never on notice that the land was even managed, let alone aware of somehow agreeing to a contract that was far from prominent.  Which is a breach of the CRA 2015... that law says that unfair (including non-prominent) terms and 'consumer notices' are not binding on the consumer.

Alfieb93

Thanks for the points everyone!
I was in Basildon. Anyone loading would be sensible.to lock their car inbetween trips 😉
I'll try and find the claim breakdown now. Of how two 100 charges have turned into 588.
Here is the images of the signs I thought I'd attached before. Well pixelated! 

Alfieb93

Here's the breakdown.
How comes 2x100 (2x60 if paid early) Has turned into 320 or am I being stupid?

Edit. Sorry it says on the terms of that google images sign they sent in.

Alfieb93

If I lose this. Are these risks of me having to pay additional fees on top of the 588??

Not_A_Hope

The £320 is made up of two PCNs at £100 each plus £60 each for their fake add ons. They are adding court fees and of course interest over many years.

Often they try to hike up the costs to pressurise their victims to settle by paying up. As @Coupon-mad has advised I would not pay up but trust with a good defence and WS a reasonable judge will reject their claim completely or at least not allow their fake and add on costs. I would hope for the former result and request £95  for my court attendance.

If you were to lose it would most probably cost under £300 for two PCNs at £100 each plus court costs. Your most expensive option is to give in and pay £588. There is no risk of further costs by defending unless the court deems you have somehow behaved unreasonably in the process.

Coupon-mad

Alfieb93 said:

If I lose this. Are these risks of me having to pay additional fees on top of the 588??

Zero.

Honestly, ZERO CHANCE.

That isn't how small claims work. Unless you do something unreasonable like not turn up to the hearing, or not file & serve your WS bundle.  

I did already explain that one or both PCNs may well be dismissed and even if one PCN tenuously makes it across the line, your Judge won't allow the added 2 x£60 or the interest.

HUNDREDS WILL BE REMOVED IF YOU LOSE.

This is how to argue that point about the extortionate fees and interest, in your WS (thanks to @Johnersh for these words):


As well as denying that the Claimant is entitled to parking charges, I deny that the Claimant has incurred any ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery fees’. Then there is the extortionate attempt to harvest several years’ interest, which must surely be dismissed by the court. Interest is discretionary, not an absolute entitlement and it has been falsely calculated from day one on the whole amount.

I take the point that enhancing their claim to interest on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

Further, this Claimant has sat on their hands and unreasonably delayed commencing proceedings for years, setting themselves up to profit from a hugely exaggerated 'reward' by default, had I not defended the claim. As such, I also take the point that – in the unlikely event that this claim is successful – interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd [2007] BLR 452). 

Alfieb93

That's brilliant. Thanks coupon mad. you're really on the ball with this