Leisure Centre and flats private car park

pcn_rights

Coupon-mad said:

Why not re-forward it and give them a prod?

Hi @Coupon-mad, I've posted my WS here on this thread. Could you please help me have a look? Thank you very much!!!!

Coupon-mad

That's a very good WS.

1. yes that's OK

2.  yes £19 is defined as the standard hourly rate somewhere in the CPRs but if your hourly rate is higher, and you are arguing that the C has acted 'wholly unreasonably' throughout this litigation, you can attach proof of your hourly rate & try for that.

You need to attach Excel v Wilkinson as a transcript Exhibit.  Looks like you merely refer to it, which is not enough.

Para 23 needs an edit because your words read as though you are accepting that 'the driver is liable' for the false added 'costs' which they can't have been because such costs are an abusive attempt at double recovery of the £50 capped legal fees intended by the small claims rules, and were never actually incurred.

And that fake 'fee' is at best, buried in the smallest of small print - if it is on the sign (the contract that the driver is being bound by) at all. That makes it an unfair term and thus, unrecoverable under the CRA 2015 new test of prominence.

And that clause is subject to a 'test for fairness' even though it's ostensibly a 'price term' because it isn't prominently displayed - a fact which opens it up to the CRA fairness test and the hidden sum is deemed not exempt from that test.  Also, the false £70 add-on is a punitive secondary clause, not the core 'price' of parking so it can be assessed by the courts as unjustified enrichment and found to be unrecoverable, as was held in ParkingEye v Somerfield.

AND the new statutory 'DLUHC CoP' says that sum is designed to 'extort money from motorists'.  This is important because the new CoP was published in Feb 2022, just weeks prior to the parking event.  Whilst the new Code was temporarily stalled by parking industry attack (Judicial Review challenging the process and decision to ban these disproportionate 'fees') it is now being resurrected this month (July 2023).

If this BW skelly is the same one seen on another thread, IMHO it has potential to mislead the court and you should CALL IT OUT!

If it's the same skelly, the solicitor for the C calls the DLUHC Code 'defunct' (dictionary definition: 'no longer existing').

That is not true and without a shadow of doubt - unless they've been living in a cave off-grid for a year - BW Legal (who are on an influential policy board of the IPC Trade Body) absolutely know that the DLUHC Code is being reintroduced this very month.

For that reason hold off emailing your WS bundle to the local court and BW Legal until the last possible day (but do it before 3.30pm that day).

The DLUHC Announcement to update the (only ever temporarily stalled) statutory Code is so imminently anticipated - and will include a draft Impact Assessment likely to include detailed analysis of the evidence used and to (hopefully) reiterate the ban on the fake DRA fees - that you will KICK yourself if you jump the gun and miss out telling your Judge about it!

1505grandad

Para 12  -  typo?  -  " “discloses no reasonable grounds for brining or defending the claim”  

pcn_rights

AND the new statutory 'DLUHC CoP' says that sum is designed to 'extort money from motorists'.  This is important because the new CoP was published in Feb 2022, just weeks prior to the parking event.  Whilst the new Code was temporarily stalled by parking industry attack (Judicial Review challenging the process and decision to ban these disproportionate 'fees') it is now being resurrected this month (July 2023).

If this BW skelly is the same one seen on another thread, IMHO it has potential to mislead the court and you should CALL IT OUT!

If it's the same skelly, the solicitor for the C calls the DLUHC Code 'defunct' (dictionary definition: 'no longer existing').

That is not true and without a shadow of doubt - unless they've been living in a cave off-grid for a year - BW Legal (who are on an influential policy board of the IPC Trade Body) absolutely know that the DLUHC Code is being reintroduced this very month.

For that reason hold off emailing your WS bundle to the local court and BW Legal until the last possible day (but do it before 3.30pm that day).

The DLUHC Announcement to update the (only ever temporarily stalled) statutory Code is so imminently anticipated - and will include a draft Impact Assessment likely to include detailed analysis of the evidence used and to (hopefully) reiterate the ban on the fake DRA fees - that you will KICK yourself if you jump the gun and miss out telling your Judge about it!

BW changed their wording in my skelly, there is no "defunct" in mine, instead:

"The Defendant refers to the draft Code of Practice, which has not been implemented, and has no application until 2024. It is also subject to significant changes following recent successful challenges against the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs, with www.gov.uk withdrawing its guidance on the draft code and advising: "This guidance was withdrawn n 7 June 2022 - Private Parking Code of Practice is temporarily withdrawn pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees".

pcn_rights

1505grandad said:

Para 12  -  typo?  -  " “discloses no reasonable grounds for brining or defending the claim”  

good catch!! have corrected it! Thanks!

Coupon-mad

pcn_rights said:

BW changed their wording in my skelly, there is no "defunct" in mine, instead:

"The Defendant refers to the draft Code of Practice, which has not been implemented, and has no application until 2024. It is also subject to significant changes following recent successful challenges against the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs, with www.gov.uk withdrawing its guidance on the draft code and advising: "This guidance was withdrawn n 7 June 2022 - Private Parking Code of Practice is temporarily withdrawn pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees".

Right... but 'successful challenges' merely means they successfully put a spanner in the works and the process needs re-doing and the decision on THOSE CLAUSES ONLY must be assessed and revisited to get the Code over the line, not that the Judicial Reviews were ultimately "successful challenges against the reduction of the parking charge amounts and debt recovery costs."

The DLUHC Code is about to be un-withdrawn.  Hopefully before your WS deadline, which is why we say wait.

Le_Kirk

@pcn_rights, why have you posted on this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6326420/my-parking-bay-county-court-claim-received/p1
Is it you?  Is it related?  It is very confusing seemingly having the same issue being dealt with on two different threads!

pcn_rights

Le_Kirk said:

@pcn_rights, why have you posted on this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6326420/my-parking-bay-county-court-claim-received/p1
Is it you?  Is it related?  It is very confusing seemingly having the same issue being dealt with on two different threads!

The OP of that thread is not me, but I had the same issue as OP had, that's why I replied in that thread on Page 9. Sorry for the confusion...

Le_Kirk

pcn_rights said:

Le_Kirk said:

@pcn_rights, why have you posted on this thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6326420/my-parking-bay-county-court-claim-received/p1
Is it you?  Is it related?  It is very confusing seemingly having the same issue being dealt with on two different threads!

The OP of that thread is not me, but I had the same issue as OP had, that's why I replied in that thread on Page 9. Sorry for the confusion...

OK, you need, then, to make sure that anything you posted on the other thread that is relevant to your case is also posted on this, your correct thread, otherwise regulars might miss salient information.

Fruitcake

Please show us your statement of truth to confirm you are using the correct one.