Euro carparks / QDR solicitors letter before court action please help

Theyreallouttogetme

thank you once again

Coupon-mad

They are again - like in the one received by BellaTrix - oddly pleading the parking charge as 'damages' which is not the way ParkingEye v Beavis was argued (contract).

Looks disingenuous to shout 'Beavis, innit?!' but then not plead the case in contract.  'Damages' has a different interpretation and have to be proven/incurred I think, otherwise there's no legitimate interest supporting the high sum.

I think the Beavis rationale even mentions that only the landowner (not an agent) can claim a case in damages and would be limited to a nominal sum.  Hence why the out of touch Supreme Court thought ParkingEye's contractual ('it's on those high signs in that other bay area, two hundred yards away') model was a wonderful jolly wheeze.

This (a damages claim) has certainly not been 'tested' in the Supreme Court as QDR suggest...

Also they didn't use the Damages Claims PAP or the Damages claims Portal (damages claims are not 'debt' and are meant to be on a separate portal/pathway I think, albeit that might only apply to damages for Personal Injury, so I stand to be corrected on that - IANAL).

See what the legal posters think about that POC:

@Johnersh

@bargepole

@troublemaker22

Trainerman

Interesting that in that PoC, they imply that the extra £70 was tested in 'Beavis'. 

KeithP

Theyreallouttogetme said:

Thank you all so much for your help. Here is my shortened second draft for section 3 in line (I think?) with advice given. I would appreciate your comments.

1,The defendant accepts that the vehicle was in the carpark but only for an extremely short period of time, the reason was to drop off and pick up their disabled daughter (blue badge xxxxx). The driver did not park the car or even get out, they only waited fleetingly for their daughters return and this has been communicated to ECP from the outset. 

2, The defendant understands that those with disability should be given extra time and leniency and in this case the parking operator failed to make 'reasonable adjustments' of fixed time policies, which is illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

I would suggest that para 1 could perhaps be better written as...
1. The defendant accepts that the vehicle was in the car park but only for an extremely short period of time, the reason was to drop off and pick up a disabled passenger (blue badge xxxxx). The driver did not park the car or even get out. The car only stopped briefly for the passenger to alight, and later re-board, and this has been communicated to ECP from the outset. 

Coupon-mad

Agreed.

The OP needs to respond to the "damages" allegation though.

Johnersh

Damages for breach of contract, innit?

The particulars are generic in nature and can be criticised for that. They are little better than the bare claim form.

Para 2 - this is the best example of how generic it is. How can C not know whether D has been named by someone as driver or is only the keeper. Unlike the wording in other PoC these are mutually exclusive.

Contract - CPR PD16 7.3(1) when serving a separate PoC the full written terms of the contract are required to be appended. There is an exemption for MCOL claims, but that is expressly DISAPPLIED in CPR 7C when the PoC are served separately.

Interest - statutory interest is discretionary and the PoC do not set out full details of the calculation as required by CPR 16.4(2)

Even if it is adequate to set out a breach of contract (arguable) but it definitely doesn't adequately plead any contractual term that entitles them to uplifts. If pursued as keeper, my interpretation of POFA sch IV is that it limits liability to the sum in the notice to the keeper which would be £100. It may not apply here, but the keeper as distinct from the driver, would not necessarily have seen the signs. 

Coupon-mad

Theyreallouttogetme said:

thank you once again

Did you file a defence?

Theyreallouttogetme

Yes I filed the above documentation as my defence. I got a letter accepting receipt from the court and a letter from QDR the solicitors stating that they intend to proceed. I'll past up the docs shortly. I havent had a DQ from the court yet.   

Theyreallouttogetme

these are the latest docs

Theyreallouttogetme

update I have just had the DQ from the court through the post this afternoon. happy to answer all questions under the advice from the same page as the template defence. 

one question asked is;

 if you do not want the judge to make a determination based on the papers but rather prefer to be in court, please give a reason for this.

I would prefer to go to court and read out my witness statement and for the court to see the emotion involved in this so that I can express the harassment I have felt personally etc. I would be grateful for your thoughts on a reasonable rationale to answer this question.