Formal Letter of Claim received from QDR Solicitors

sarin999

The Claimaint's witness statement includes a number of Case References which maybe of interest:

"The Claimant issues PCNS to ensure that the site is managed on behalf of the landowners. By the very nature of the site, the Claimant must remain objective in its management of the site. If there was no schee to deter individuals from parking their vehicles on the site free of any rules, the site may be abused by motorists. The Claimant refers to:"

ParkingEye v Beavis. "The Supreme Court decision established that the sums claimed in respect of PCNs of this nature were neither; "extravagent nor unconscionable and that there were commercial justifications for imposing a deterrent charge on those who failed to comply with the rules of the car park"

This seems a counter to ParkingEye Ltd v Somereld Stores Ltd?

One Parking Solution Ltd v Norma Wilshaw. : "ParkingEye v Beavis is dealing with a different charge, payable for overstaying after the expiry of the initial free period. At paragraph 102 Lord Neuberger makes it clear that it would not fall foul of section 62 [of the Consumer Rights Act 2015] because even if there was an imbalance between the parties it did not arise "contrary to the requirement of good faith" because the owner of the land and the management

company had a legitimate interest to protect. In the present case I cannot see how it can be said that there was bad faith. Once the driver is liable to pay a charge the Claimant needed to obtain the name and address from the DVLA and then to process the documentation. All this has a costs implication".

Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Adam Percy (28 September 2021) paragraph 61-62 states:

"61. I do not think that the term, albeit that it seeks an unquantified amount, causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations. As HHJ Moloney observed, the motorist is being given the valuable privilege of parking on private land in return for a promise to pay a specified sum in the event that he/she fails to display a ticket and, in this case, an additional sum if he/she fails to pay the specified sum. 62. In the consideration of all the circumstances (as one is required to do under s62(5)(b)), it is right to note that the motorist has a choice. He/she can choose not to park in the car park but also the motorist has a choice to pay the PCN or appeal, in which event no additional charges arise. This is not a charge which the motorist is obliged to pay at the whim of VCS irrespective of the conduct of the motorist. It is right to say that the motorist even knows what the additional charge is. It is specified in the PCN and he/she can avoid paying it by paying the initial charge of £100 or £60 if he/she pays quickly enough"

Coupon-mad

No worries; nothing new there. We know about all of them and indeed some of us were involved in all three.

Did you notice that 2 out of 3 of them are already mentioned and dealt with in the Template Defence, if you used it?

Beavis didn't deal with added costs so Somerfield is unaffected.

sarin999

Do you\anyone have a link to download the PDF of Parking Eye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) please? I've googled but only seem to find a 2012 reference to the case 

Less than a week to go to the hearing

Coupon-mad

No but it is easy to find by Googling (I've looked it up loads of times and found it easily every time). You want the one at High Court stage.  Might be in a link on 'Swarb' or 'Casemine'.

sarin999

Have just received the Claimants Bundle through the post with 1 day to go before the case. I haven't sent a bundle through to the claimant or court only my witness statement and exhibits. Is that OK?

Coupon-mad

Yes. You did your bit.

I assume you mean they have supplied a joint bundle of theirs and your submissions because the court ordered that in the Hearing Order.  Normal.

Have you gone slowly with a fine tooth comb through ALL their evidence, looked at dates of photos etc, looked at the landowner authority?

Noticed that QDR have probably added an extortionate £82 which is blown away by the binding authority of ParkingEye v Somerfield?

Written yourself some notes to read out at the hearing?

sarin999

Today's the day. Wish me luck

sarin999

Lost unfortunately. The Judge preferred the evidence submitted by the Claimant that there was adequate signage that a reasonable person could have seen. The case law I relied on didn't seem to make a difference. Only thing that went in my favour was not awarding interest as they hadn't deal with the first case when it arose rather waited 2 years. Oh well....

Coupon-mad

Bad luck.

Did the Judge even somehow think that the fake added fee of £82 was on the sign too?

Because it wasn't, and £82 is hugely disproportionate, breaches the cap in the Code of Practice., is double recovery and against the binding authority of ParkingEye v Somerfield, (which was probably in your defence if you used the template).

sarin999

Coupon-mad said:

Bad luck.

Did the Judge even somehow think that the fake added fee of £82 was on the sign too?

Because it wasn't, and £82 is hugely disproportionate, breaches the cap in the Code of Practice., is double recovery and against the binding authority of ParkingEye v Somerfield, (which was probably in your defence if you used the template).

It was £70 per ticket and he made reference to that being industry standard and accepted. I quoted Somerfield to no avail and yes I did use the template.