Letter of claim: CE LTD response to claimant

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81871932#Comment_81871932

Yes that's likely it.

I am concerned as I think Swansea court may have been crap in the past. but you are stuck with it, so fingers crossed for a more canny judge than the awful one(s).

my bundle with this image would be the only readable sign for the court.

Then REMOVE Exhibit 3. Leave the judge with ZERO images of the contract and you win.

Definitely remove it.

Their distant signage pics also look to be undated? Are they? If yes, teehee!

Make sure that your signage pics include the date & time metadata. But no Exhibit 3 sign!

As for the landowner authority document; it is curious. As you say, the start date says 'TBH'.

Are the signatures actually dated? When?

Are they hand-signed or were they already redacted?

The curious thing is that - hmmmm - I don't think the VERY SPECIFIC wording used in that supposed landowner authority was in the BPA Code of Practice in late 2023 (which would have been when the change to the rules happened).

I can't check whether it was in the January 2024 BPA CoP because this device doesn't trust the BPA website!

But have a look at the BPA CoPs applicable in 2023 and the new one they brought out in Jan 2024.

The wording is specific to the Joint Code but that didn't start until Oct 2024.

BTW, you had a typo 'defense' (not a word in the UK).

Adrian1999

I have submitted my witness statement.

typically, only rechecking it now - its export into PDF has lost fidelity, and several of my exhibits are missing, but not affecting exhibit 3.

Is it possible to resubmit my witness statement with this fixed?

Everything redacted in the post, is by me.

I stand corrected regarding Exhibit 3. Your response made me think. The claimant depicts signage at a distance and no intelligible images of the signage information.

HOWEVER, claimants witness point 27 (see below) demonstrates the content of the signage as unformatted typed text, and does not prove if the signage in the carpark prominently brings terms to the drivers attention, as shown in my exhibit 3.

my apologies regarding the claimant images of the car park - they are dated 05/12/2023. Date of incident is 25/01/2024.

I have, unfortunately, only by word of mouth from 2024 that the enforcement came into place on 01/01/2024. But again, I had parked on 11/01/23 without registration or PCN.

Here is the confirmation of appointment letter again, only names are redacted. The only date and time indicated is by the practice manager - 17/11/23. The CEL sales officer signature has no date or time.

Both signatures are clearly digital, the practice manger is italics, while the CEL sales officer is clearly typed text.

Sorry to ensure confidentially and anonymity, I just redacted everything that could be an issue - unsure of the scope I need to ensure this.

I will check BPA CoPS. As I am looking, the 2024 update, was published version 9 February 2024. CoPS version 8 is indicated to be referred for non-compliance up to and not including 1st February 2024.

Thanks! Sorry, I was brought up with a mix of British and Americanised education, and I easily move between the two.

Adrian1999

BPA CoPS version 8

BPA CoPS version 9

Oh yes! "In consideration of the above, the Landowner has directed the operator to manage the land and confirms that it has considered with the Operator:"

• There does not seem to be any written authority for the operator to take legal action?
  • a requirement that ties into both their statutory obligation (?which govern them BPA/IPC?) and their requirements of accredited parking association - as per the requirement of BPA CoPS version 8.
• Enforcement policy indicates 'permit holder and pay to park' - in actuality it is registration of patients car OR pay to park for non-patients.
  • No conditions?

The sign below - in regards to sharing data, it states:

• "Shared with third parties in order to collect any sums due and with analytics organisation to understand vehicle and consumer behaviour and improve parking."
• This would be considered a third party, and of whom also need to be AOS registered? as per BPA CoPS (see CoPs version 8 12.3 below)

Does this become an issue of GDPR/Data protection act transparency of their privacy information?

my understanding of section 12 requesting registered keeper details, is that: 12.1 Any BPA member (car park enforcer, i.e claimant) needs to be an AOS member to request vehicle information from DVLA.

12.2 when enforcer applys to DVLA for information, they confirm they are BAP and AOS, and confirm they will keep to this code, data protection and any other relevant act. (i.e claimant request for information is on the basis request for obtaining will keep to their membership code, data protection and any other relevant act).

12.3 You (parking enforcer, claimant) must use the data for the intended process of obtaining it, i.e parking control and enforcement. Not as an agent to transmit information to and on behalf of a third party (?party other than the enforcer or landowner) - unless third party is a AOS member and meets their compliance. If you do not keep to this code, membership to AOS and BPA could be suspended or terminated?

Coupon-mad

Oh dear. I wish you hadn't submitted the WS before we checked it. There is no way anyone should put in a close-up of the contract (sign) if the Claimant hasn't!

It also means you haven't been able to point out that the so-called Landowner contract CANNOT POSSIBLY have been created and signed before Jan 2024 because that precise terminology and those exact phrases only came in as clause 14 of the new 'Joint Code' which took effect from October 2024.

Now you'll just have to raise these things at the hearing and not have the two silver bullets you could have had in your WS, had you waited for comment first.

There does not seem to be any written authority for the operator to take legal action?

Yes there does. That's not the point I was making. But you haven't made my point in your WS anyway.

Adrian1999

You are very correct. I have made my bed on this, as yesterday was the deadline, and, by your response, presume I have to accept exhibits that failed to export correctly. Among the other issues you have stated!.

I will have to do my best to tackle it verbally in person!

Coupon-mad

I would in fact follow up with a fresh version today - with corrected exhibits - but you can't change your WS wording.

Adrian1999

Post court. Long story short. Verdict rule for claimant.

Unfortunately I completely collapsed at the hearing, unable to really validate anything. The honour gave credit to everything I raised was relevant, however effectively signage was sufficient in his judgement.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902236#Comment_81902236

Aahhh bad luck.

Signage evidence is key. And as I warned you: there is no way any defendant should put in a close-up of the contract (sign) if the Claimant hasn't!

Also I see you were at Swansea and we've noticed before IIRC that the Welsh court judges are the most pro-PPC.

How much do you have to pay? Surely the false double recovery fee was disallowed? Did the other side turn up or was it you plus the judge?

Adrian1999

They hired a legal representative from the local area to attend. Funnily enough, the legal representative except from their directions, was given limited information from their claimant (Not seen my WS, and one other thing).

A bit confused on that money owed part - as the PoC indicates £274.75. While some quick in court maths between the judge and the claimants representative, indicated a total sum of £297.75.

On the PPC website, their system still has the lower pre-court settle fee of £135 indicated..

The Claimant requested for additional money for costs after the CCJ verdict, about @~£400. On the grounds that I did not engage with them directly.

I argued the double recovery - the judge was having none of it. I can't remember his exact words as signage was clear, expected charge is explicit detailed on the signage terms, and I can't remember their wording justifying the interest (which is not on the signage).

I'll have to review the paper judgement.

So it clear to me, especially if I got it wrong, could 'false double recovery fee' be elaborated?

• And would it tie into PE v Beavis - in the sense of, PE v Beavis only argued a single penalty and that their omission to discuss secondary penalties does not make secondary penalties acceptable?

Coupon-mad

There are IMHO only two ways they could have got round the fact that Beavis, Somerfield and PoFA Sch4 say that the added fake fee is unrecoverable 'double recovery' of the same heads of cost.

either:

1. The judge was clueless on that fact and believed the legal rep, or
2. The £70 was in 'big' explicitly stated on the signs. An actual sum of money prominently displayed is then part of the contract (and unarguable).

The added £400 the rep tried to argue for was because he could see that you were floundering (so sorry) and he knew that he was pushing against an open door with a hopeless judge (who even allowed 8% interest).

The £400 was him 'trying it on' and turning the screw to say those were his fees and travel costs and that the C should be awarded ALL costs on the indemnity basis.

But in small claims, that's not allowed unless (exceptionally) you had acted wholly unreasonably such as not turning up to the hearing. You didn't act unreasonably. So he would not get the extra costs.

The extra small fee was the hearing fee.