Shoddy Claim Form Euro Car Parks / QDR Solicitors

Coupon-mad

Tiredofbeingdone said:

Many thanks everyone for your wise words.

Defence now submitted based largely on Troublemaker's input - very grateful.

I'll be sure to update the group when I hear more.

You should bookmark the threads by @Bellatrix42 and the other one who posted only yesterday with a new (similar) QDR claim.

MajorLobster

I too have received these identical detailed POC from QDR claiming for an incorrect date and interestingly, stating the Beavis case as being "tested" for their shenanigans.

I'm well underway to writing my Defence, however I feel the need to make reference to this misleading statement.

For reminder, their claim was:

"All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67."


I'd like a second opinion as to whether I should
a) even bother to try and hold them accountable for their lie
b) use the below wording or amend it

My proposed section would be as follows:

"11. The Claimant has signed a declaration of truth stating in the POC that “All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67." This statement is false and misleading.

12. These charges were never tested in The Beavis Case as it never ruled on a £100 parking charge nor this Claimants attempted fake add-on of £70 as alleged in the above statement. 

13. The Beavis Case was ruled on an £85 fee which included the operation of the scheme and was, in this isolated case, clearly marked on the signs in bold with contrasting background. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 for reference. Whilst the Defendant will not pass opinion on whether the Claimant made this false statement with deliberate intent to mislead, should the Claimant go forward with this claim and suggest The Beavis Case is still relevant under the same criteria as signed originally in the POC, the Defence would welcome the court to treat this statement by the Claimant as consciously misleading hereafter."

I will of course continue to use the rest of the template after this section.

Thoughts?

Tiredofbeingdone

If they have claimed you have breached their terms & conditions on a date where you were demonstrably nowhere near the site in question, perhaps build your defence largely on that point.

Although tempting to point out all the other errors, it may be worth saving those points in case they come back later for a second bite of the cherry.

Coupon-mad

MajorLobster said:

I too have received these identical detailed POC from QDR claiming for an incorrect date and interestingly, stating the Beavis case as being "tested" for their shenanigans.

I'm well underway to writing my Defence, however I feel the need to make reference to this misleading statement.

For reminder, their claim was:

"All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67."


I'd like a second opinion as to whether I should
a) even bother to try and hold them accountable for their lie
b) use the below wording or amend it

My proposed section would be as follows:

"11. The Claimant has signed a declaration of truth stating in the POC that “All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67." This statement is false and misleading.

12. These charges were never tested in The Beavis Case as it never ruled on a £100 parking charge nor this Claimants attempted fake add-on of £70 as alleged in the above statement. 

13. The Beavis Case was ruled on an £85 fee which included the operation of the scheme and was, in this isolated case, clearly marked on the signs in bold with contrasting background. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 for reference. Whilst the Defendant will not pass opinion on whether the Claimant made this false statement with deliberate intent to mislead, should the Claimant go forward with this claim and suggest The Beavis Case is still relevant under the same criteria as signed originally in the POC, the Defence would welcome the court to treat this statement by the Claimant as consciously misleading hereafter."

I will of course continue to use the rest of the template after this section.

Thoughts?

Four of you here now then.  Search for & bookmark all of them.

You will need your own thread.  Wrong (Americanised) date in the detailed schedule?

I wouldn't put this (below phrase) because buried in the Beavis judgment, there is mention of Local Authority PCN levels of that sort of level:

"it never ruled on a £100 parking charge" 

Tiredofbeingdone

Just updating the forum...

1. Defence submitted 1st Feb (as advised a few posts up.
2. 21st Feb - Letter received from QDR Solicitors: "Please note our intention to proceed with this claim"

I imagine this is their standard procedure and I plan to no further action at this stage.

KeithP

Tiredofbeingdone said:

Just updating the forum...

1. Defence submitted 1st Feb (as advised a few posts up.
2. 21st Feb - Letter received from QDR Solicitors: "Please note our intention to proceed with this claim"

I imagine this is their standard procedure and I plan to no further action at this stage.

You imagine??

You were expecting that weren't you?

Item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence says...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

em2022

Is the claim still ongoing?

Tiredofbeingdone

Yes, the claim continues. Yesterday I received the Small Claims Directions Questionaire (Form N180), which I plan to complete in the coming days.

Tiredofbeingdone

Hi again everyone! After some months of silence Euro Car Parks / QDR Solicitors have woken from their hibernation.

A quick recap to save you the long read of all the above:

• Refers to an alleged under-payment of pay-and-display parking fees from 2022.
• The identity of the driver (not the defendant) has not been confirmed to ECP.
• ECP specified incorrect contravention date (Americanised format) on their original claim form.
• Defence filed 1st February

In the last couple of days, an email has been received from ECP where, “in the spirit of transparency”, I am invited to agree to their amending the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim.

I am uncertain how to proceed – can I decline their request to change the claim? What happens if I do? Or are we now back to square-one whereby I need to file an alternative defence not based around my original “I wasn’t there on that date” defence?

+++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++

Any advice gratefully received – thank you all so much for your support.

There were five attachments to the email which I have redacted and stored as follows:

Claimant's Amended Claim Form

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/prvsblya6yfm13eygew53/Redacted-P-Claimant-s-Amended-Claim-Form.pdf?rlkey=kyarwd19x8itlkzilzco3wl5z&st=eefo9kqt&dl=0

Claimant's Amended Particulars of Claim (I removed photo of car entering & exiting car park)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jukx6uk28zvwk397k0qd4/Redacted-P-Claimant-s-Amended-Particulars-of-Claim.pdf?rlkey=w59p7i0wuylz3d0lsdcqulvmu&st=5wndkmz2&dl=0

Claimant's Draft Order

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hfsjmbxo07jb7q0qkbxn2/Redacted-P-Claimant-s-Draft-Order.pdf?rlkey=dglafx3e0v9sfdugvoxdnl1bk&st=t5m6wyxi&dl=0

Claimant's N244 Application

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/23wkt5m741yr7anty3win/Redacted-P-Claimant-s-N244-Application.pdf?rlkey=8jeuyetuv4yvm15sqoy05zjqz&st=02fwlqh7&dl=0

Consent Order

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/axsvwghtsb16pu7qoc3v1/Redacted-P-Consent-Order.pdf?rlkey=mf2tzdsvgfom9k3c64ntvhdg9&st=unp3b4j9&dl=0

 

Coupon-mad

@Harbmeister

Read them and use the same wording.  You don't agree to this.