Parking Charge Notice - Defence Submission

Coupon-mad

Yes because they are all trite law, well known authorities that are 'reported' cases that the Judge can access.

allshallbewell

Thank you Coupon-mad. That's a relief.
Apropo paras 98,100,193 and 198 from the Beavis case ( ref para 16 in your template) - I don't quite see how the content of these paras help - is the point that the Resondent in Beavis has justified the £85 in terms of running a scheme and making a profit in the 2015 case whereas car parking companies x,y and z are now routinely inflating their charges to £160 or more with no such justification?

Coupon-mad

Yes it is saying that the £85 covered all costs & a healthy profit, from an ANPR auto-PCN model.

allshallbewell

Thank you Coupon-mad. That's clear.
As I understand it the WS is about providing the factual evidence in support of a case and this includes reference to relevant case and statutory law and codes of practice. What about written arguments about the case, including legal points and opinion - can these be included in the WS as these are submissions rather than evidence - or should they be put to the judge in court or beforehand as a separate skeleton argument rather than in the WS? Would be grateful for a steer on this as don't want to break any rules.

Coupon-mad

Technically legal points should be in a skelly but you'll see from the 5 x WS examples (linked by usernames) in the NEWBIES thread that 'anything goes' in small claims, and we usually lump it all in the WS. 

allshallbewell

Thanks. That's what I had noticed. Judges in small claims don't get irritated by interposed submissions in a WS then? Or would they prefer a separate skelly?

Coupon-mad

No all they want is to hear what you have to say.  Most cut a bit of slack for consumers.  Never seen one annoyed by a long WS except about the Claimant's version as they should know better and include template legal ramblings. 

allshallbewell

Thank you Coupon-mad. That's good. Is there specific evidence that Total Car Parks Ltd. routinely pursue a disproportionate additional fixed sum (added per PCN through ) contrary to the industry cap etc. or is it best to keep it generic and say 'It is widely known on the basis of multiple claims put before the courts that car park operators ....'? Generic or named?

Coupon-mad

TCP haven't added the fake fee. The DRA / legals did, for their own profit.

allshallbewell

Thank you for clarifying Coupon-mad. 
On a small legal point - if a coin-operated parking machine develops a fault and fails to return change, does the intended contract still stand when the green button is pressed or can an argument be made for extending the time parked pro rata in lieu of the cash witheld by the faulty machine?