Court Case for unloading bulky furniture outside own (rented) residence

UnloadTheShelves

I proof read it twice to make sure I didn't leave our address and names or claim number or dates in there. If anyone spots anything please please can you let me know asap as I am paranoid about leaving personal info online (as you can see, I have lots of issues , ha!)

UnloadTheShelves

Comments on the last-ish bit about unreasonable charger particularly welcome. I feel like it is a bit too patchy but hopefully the point comes across?

UnloadTheShelves

This is from claimant's WS by Gladstone legal assistant:

Fruitcake

Additional charges for payment by 'phone, and card payments including debit cards are banned under statute, in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013 and in the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.
Additional charges above that of the original charge are also prohibited by the PoFA 2012.

In addition, the fake £70 add on debt recovery cost is not specified on the sign, which in any case as already mentioned, is a stock image and not an image of the signs present at the material site at the material time. Additional charges cannot be introduced after the event as determined in the persuasive appeal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane. The signs say additional charges may be incurred, but don't actually specify what those charges are. They have chosen to say it's £70, but they could just as easily said they are £700, or any other figure. 
The important thing as that £70 doesn't appear on the signs (that allegedly form the contract with the motorist), and the charges that are mentioned are prohibited.

These are all little things compared with primacy of contract/not in your lease, Jopson v Homeguard etcetera, but they show a pattern of behaviour regarding the claimant's disregard for the laws and regulations of this country by which they are bound. 

1505grandad

Make sure the claimant's name in the heading is correct.

UnloadTheShelves

Thank you!!! I will try to include all that too even if theoretically "little things" in relation to my case. I'll do anything to make them want to discontinue the case as I can't take the stress 

Just popped down and the stock imagine is identical to the one on site of the alleged parking event. Is that unfortunate or fortunate? 

UnloadTheShelves

1505grandad said:

Make sure the claimant's name in the heading is correct.

OMG! Thanks!!! 

UnloadTheShelves

Fruitcake said:

 Additional charges cannot be introduced after the event as determined in the persuasive appeal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane. The signs say additional charges may be incurred, but don't actually specify what those charges are.  

i would LOVE to use this in my unreasonable charges para. Does it mean that I also have to attach the Thornton v Shoe Lane case as an exhibit thought? I wouldn't mind if just an online pdf exhibit but I am pretty sure my whole WS exceeded the court limit on printing and they will ask for a printed out bundle. My husband will be back in London beg of August so could theoretically drop it off but that would be  A LOT of printing already and they will hate him at work... But of course will find a way if I have to!

UnloadTheShelves

Trainerman said:

*Edit to correct above

oh thank you, yes now I get it! Those guys really do try everything to get themselves some merit, don't they ...

KeithP

As you say, the picture of the sign you have shown us Today at 5:13PM appears to be of an identical sign to that posted earlier - Today at 2:39PM.

Both those images show that the sign is several years old.
The Independent Parking Committee changed it's name to International Parking Community early in 2016 - over eight years ago.