Challenge Default Judgement : Premier Park Drop Case. Counterclaim denied.

Coupon-mad

stuart_c2023 said:

Wow, wasn't expecting this! After couple of emails offering a drop hands settlement, which I didn't see whilst I was on holiday just received an email with this.

Presumably my Counterclaim hearing is now a "free hit" which I've paid £35 to lodge and they paid the hearing fee? Second thoughts best check about the hearing fee 

Dear Mr xxx

We act for the Claimant.

Please find attached our Client’s Notice of Discontinuance that has been filed at the Court.

Please note, the case will proceed to the upcoming trial on your counterclaim only.  We would recommend you seek independent legal advice.

Yours faithfully

xxxx

Paralegal

Good.  Yes - free hit (or a cheap one). But:

If unpaid, the hearing fee falls to you now.

What makes you think that Gladstones have paid the hearing fee?  I doubt it. Ring up your local court, tell them NOT to vacate the hearing if the fee hasn't been paid because you wish to pay it right now for the counterclaim to be heard in May.

stuart_c2023

Coupon-mad said:

stuart_c2023 said:

Wow, wasn't expecting this! After couple of emails offering a drop hands settlement, which I didn't see whilst I was on holiday just received an email with this.

Presumably my Counterclaim hearing is now a "free hit" which I've paid £35 to lodge and they paid the hearing fee? Second thoughts best check about the hearing fee 

Dear Mr xxx

We act for the Claimant.

Please find attached our Client’s Notice of Discontinuance that has been filed at the Court.

Please note, the case will proceed to the upcoming trial on your counterclaim only.  We would recommend you seek independent legal advice.

Yours faithfully

xxxx

Paralegal

Good.  Yes - free hit (or a cheap one). But:

If unpaid, the hearing fee falls to you now.

What makes you think that Gladstones have paid the hearing fee?  I doubt it. Ring up your local court, tell them NOT to vacate the hearing if the fee hasn't been paid because you wish to pay it right now for the counterclaim to be heard in May.

I thought that the payment had to go in by the 12th March date all documentation had to be submitted, but that was an assumption. I have emailed the Court to ask if Gladstones have paid , telling them I want to proceed with counterclaim and to phone me to take payment.

stuart_c2023

Another £27 paid for the Counterclaim hearing to go ahead.

Umkomaas

stuart_c2023 said:

Another £27 paid for the Counterclaim hearing to go ahead.

For which the parking firm will be responsible if you win. Make sure you submit a fully detailed Cost Schedule to the court (cc to Gladstones) a week or so before the counterclaim hearing. 

stuart_c2023

Umkomaas said:

stuart_c2023 said:

Another £27 paid for the Counterclaim hearing to go ahead.

For which the parking firm will be responsible if you win. Make sure you submit a fully detailed Cost Schedule to the court (cc to Gladstones) a week or so before the counterclaim hearing. 

Thanks, there is one in my Defence & Counterclaim document, which states amongst other things

Costs for Part 20 Counterclaim Filing: £35.00 (plus hearing fee, if applicable, if the Claimant discontinues)

stuart_c2023

Just to confuse matters before Counterclaim hearing next weds 15/05 I received an email from Gladstones on 03/05 
PDF attached was corrupted, so had t get them to resend.. It's just a single Trial Bundle PDF with all the previous documents but raises one question

email states

We act for the claimant.

 Please find attached the Trial Bundle for the above matter.

 We confirm this has been filed at the Court

and document starts with Premier Park as the claimant

As I have already had their notice of discontinuance (which is included in the bundle) aren't they now the defendant to my counterclaim not the claimant? Just don't want to get a judge who stops hearing on a technicality. 
 

stuart_c2023

Had a chance to have a read through the trial bundle listed below and nothing not seen before.
Before I carry out revision for notes before case presumably as they have discontinued Claimant's Evidence sections 15-23 won't be considered, although most of it is repeated in their Defence to Counterclaim, including the glaring errors. . ??

TRIAL BUNDLE

HEARING: 15TH MAY 2024

PLEADINGS

Page Number

1. Claim Form 1

2. General Form of Judgment or Order 2 – 3

3. Defendants Part 20 Claim Form and Defence and Counterclaim 4 – 53

4. Claimants Acknowledgment of Service (Part 20 Claim) 54

5. Defence to Counterclaim dated 21st February 2024 53 – 61

6. Document 1 – Landowner Agreement 62 - 66

7. Document 2 – Site Signs 67 – 70

8. Document 3 – Site Map 71 – 72

9. Document 4 – Contravention Photographs 73 – 75

10. Document 5 – Whitelist 76 – 78

11. Document 6 – Parking Charge Notice 79 – 81

12. Document 7 – Defendants Appeal and Claimants Response 82 – 85

13. Notice of Trial 86

14. Claimants Notice of Discontinuance 87

CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE

15. Witness Statement Dated 23rd February 2024 88 – 95

16. Schedule of Losses 96

17. Exhibit GS1 – Landowner Agreement 97 - 101

18. Exhibit GS2 – Site Signs 102 – 105

19. Exhibit GS3 – Site Map 106 – 107

20. Exhibit GS4 – Contravention Photographs and Whitelist 108 – 112

21. Exhibit GS5 – Parking Charge Notice 113 – 115

22. Exhibit GS6 – Defendants Appeal and Claimants Response 116 – 119

23. Copy Correspondence:

a. Letter Before Claim

b. Email Serving Claimants Acknowledgment of Service

c. Email Filing Claimants Acknowledgment of Service

d. Letter Serving Defence to Counterclaim

e. Letter Filing Defence to Counterclaim

f. Certificate of Service

g. Email Serving Witness Statement

h. Email Filing Witness Statement

i. Certificate of Service

j. Email Filing Certificate of Service

k. Email Serving Notice of Discontinuance

l. Email Filing Notice of Discontinuance

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE

24. Defendants Witness Statement dated 24th February 2024 135 – 136

25. Exhibit SC_WS01 – Refusal of Car Loan 137 – 138

26. Exhibit SC_W02 – Credit Report 149 – 178

Coupon-mad

stuart_c2023 said:

Just to confuse matters before Counterclaim hearing next weds 15/05 I received an email from Gladstones on 03/05 
PDF attached was corrupted, so had t get them to resend.. It's just a single Trial Bundle PDF with all the previous documents but raises one question

email states

We act for the claimant.

 Please find attached the Trial Bundle for the above matter.

 We confirm this has been filed at the Court

and document starts with Premier Park as the claimant

As I have already had their notice of discontinuance (which is included in the bundle) aren't they now the defendant to my counterclaim not the claimant? Just don't want to get a judge who stops hearing on a technicality. 
 

Good question, but no: they remain the Claimant and you are the Defendant and Part 20 Counterclaimant.

I've no idea why they haven't made you an offer to settle your counterclaim.  You clearly have a case.  PPCs can't use ANPR surveillance that captures (and fails to exclude) vehicles that are driving through and elsewhere.

All they needed at this mixed use site (to avoid this DPA 2018 illegality) is a second ANPR 'exempting' camera which captures and exempts vehicles entering that water plant/works area.

stuart_c2023

Well, that wasn't fun.

Premier Park had representation (nice chap had to take train down from London to Plymouth for the hearing who is probably reading this), who pressed home the point that as now counterclaim only and questioned particular points of law  in the counterclaim.

Abridged notes from the Judge's summary against section of my counterclaim

21. This counterclaim is for damages for distress caused by the Claimant's multiple breaches of the DPA 2018, GDPR 2018, and clear breach of the ICO Code of Practice on Surveillance Cameras which forms a mandatory part of the BPA Code of Practice regarding use of ANPR, which can only be used in a fully enclosed site, unless extra ANPR cameras are placed to exclude those accessing other sites.

Lesson for the hive mind "Judge accepted my argument that the car park system was flawed but as I couldn't cite the particular section of BPA he wouldn't agree that Premier Park were at fault in obtaining information from DVLA and passing on"

22.  The counterclaim is pursuant to the following:  

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duties under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);   

Judge dismissed as said it was a remote contract.

b) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR'); for unlawfully obtaining, processing and passing on my data to notoriously aggressive third party debt recovery agencies

As per Para 21 above

c) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3;

Judged ruled that the Debt Recovery Plus and Gladstone pursuit to CCJ was standard for this type of event.  This is annoying part as ignores  fact the process shouldn't have been started

d) damages for distress caused by damage to the Defendants credit rating as per Exhibit SC07 RBS refusal of car loan.

Judge ruled that although I had proved the CCJ had damaged Credit Rating it was not Premier Park's issue as the CCJ being issued in default was between me and CNBC, which he sympathised with but couldn't blame Premier Park .

Had a very nervous few minutes while their representative argued for costs, which the judge dismissed.

So, in short 18 months and countless hours later I'm £62 out of pocket rather than the original £60 PCN .

Moral of the story is learn that CNBC has an email address or use registered mail.

Thank you everyone who has helped me during this process. 

Is it only Weds? I need a drink 

LDast

Judge bingo. You, unfortunately, had a doozie. Rest satisfied that it cost PP much more than it ever cost you.

Lesson for the hive mind "Judge accepted my argument that the car park system was flawed but as I couldn't cite the particular section of BPA he wouldn't agree that Premier Park were at fault in obtaining information from DVLA and passing on"

Wasn't it referenced in your WS?