Save As To Costs

maclean7265

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the help on this forum. It's been so easy to follow and get advice and really appreciate all the work you put in.

I've now got a court date set for the end of October against Parkingeye but they have just sent through a reduced sum "save as to costs" settlement. I am obviously not going to pay and continuing to defend in court but two questions:

- Is this normal? I can't see on the forum examples of other people receiving this.
- Should I reply to confirm my rejection of this offer?

Thanks!

saajan_12

The 'save as to costs' means they want to settle the actual penalty but still keep the option open for them to claim their costs from you. With no indication as to what that might be (will they claim hours and hours preparing for court?), this is not a good idea for you. 

maclean7265

Thanks @saajan_12 for confirming! They mentioned the cost is a "settlement of the outstanding claim" but I am still committed to taking this forward at the court level. 

Nellymoser

Having read the advice on here you'll be aware there are set costs a Judge can award if you were to lose regardless of what Parkingeye tries to claim.

Regulars would be best to advise on your questions. Do you have a Mediation appt?

Coupon-mad

saajan_12 said:

The 'save as to costs' means they want to settle the actual penalty but still keep the option open for them to claim their costs from you. With no indication as to what that might be (will they claim hours and hours preparing for court?), this is not a good idea for you. 

It doesn't mean that.

It means they are making an offer that cannot be mentioned at the hearing except for when costs might be discussed right at the end.

If your case is a ParkingEye in-house claim (not filed by DCB Legal) and if it was something similar to Beavis - retail park overstay with no disabled motorist involved - you should make a WPSATC offer back to PEye to appear reasonable and because overstay cases are more likely to be lost.

@maclean7265. Have you done your WS bundle yet? Show us your planned WS so we know what this is all about.

Recent good WS off the top of my head:

@Defendant911

@Harry77

@Milliered 

ONLY LOOK AT THEIR FINAL DRAFT WS (OBVIOUSLY DON'T STOP READING AT THEIR FIRST EFFORT WE THEN CRITIQUED).

maclean7265

Thanks @Coupon-mad, this is really helpful. I am completing the WS bundle today and will share a version of it later this afternoon.

It is a ParkingEye in-house claim but I was not the driver at the time and have previously informed PE of this before the court claim (and have evidence). 

The slightly confusing thing with the letter was titled "WITHOUT PREJUDICE (SAVE AS TO COSTS)" but then mentions below that they are "in receipt of further information and in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion without further cost to either party, we can confirm we are prepared to accept (ORIGINAL FINE SUM) in settlement of the outstanding claim". Is this normal or is this unusual?

Half_way

there is no penalty to settle

maclean7265

Thanks again everyone!

My WS draft can be found here: WS

I'd welcome any comments and suggestions. Any questions or, please let me know!

KeithP

maclean7265 said:

My WS draft can be found here: WS

I'd welcome any comments and suggestions. Any questions or, please let me know!

But that document is entitled - DEFENCE     

maclean7265

KeithP said:

maclean7265 said:

My WS draft can be found here: WS

I'd welcome any comments and suggestions. Any questions or, please let me know!

But that document is entitled - DEFENCE     

  What a silly mistake - thank you! 

Coupon-mad

maclean7265 said:

It is a ParkingEye in-house claim but I was not the driver at the time and have previously informed PE of this before the court claim (and have evidence). 

The slightly confusing thing with the letter was titled "WITHOUT PREJUDICE (SAVE AS TO COSTS)" but then mentions below that they are "in receipt of further information and in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion without further cost to either party, we can confirm we are prepared to accept (ORIGINAL FINE SUM) in settlement of the outstanding claim". Is this normal or is this unusual?

Not unusual from PEye. The 'further information' is usually that the landowner has asked them to cancel it. Did you try that?  If yes, that's why.  They might discontinue.

You don't have a fine.

Not being the driver isn't a defence though, if their bundle shows that the NTK was POFA worded and capable of holding you liable. Have you got their bundle? Is it a compliant NTK on the back page?

Add this early in your WS, assuming the PCN was £100:

This claim is unfair and inflated and I have seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25. I believe that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs. I take the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate and impermissible sum, is double recovery (given they are also claiming 'legal fees') and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £125 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. I have no knowledge of any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £125 and I put the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.