Substantial claim - Claim Form received - Saba - QDR -Harold Wood rail car park - Can you help??

Gr1pr

Long list of stations and TfL and SABA mentioned in the following thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81788216#Comment_81788216?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=relevant+land+bylaws+

Might be useful , might not

Bear in mind that the Pofa2012 changes to that thread topic only happened a week ago,  so doesn't apply to historical pcns or penalties as in this case 

But that station may be listed,  plus there may other useful insights 

BettyBerty13

A ticket received   

Coupon-mad

We also need the first SABA letter, dated just over a month later.

BettyBerty13

Particulars of Claim received today

BettyBerty13

particulars of contraventions

BettyBerty13

@Gr1pr I checked out that thread - troublermaker said  TfL has confirmed  in a FOI response that all the following stations are locations  where TfL has appointed Saba Park Services UK Limited to operate the car park on behalf of TfL (a point reinforced by the prefix TFL on all PCNs issued by Saba at these sites): 
Harold Wood is one of the locations. 

Coupon-mad

BettyBerty13 said:

Particulars of Claim received today

BettyBerty13 said:

particulars of contraventions

Oh good! Doomed pleadings.

They have said they are pursuing the Defendant under a law - POFA - that didn't apply to railway car parks (the POFA only changed last week).

They are not pursuing the driver(s) and the Defendant does not have to say who that might have been.

However, this being a 4 figure claim, we strongly recommend you don't do this alone. ChirpyChicken has offered. Other regular posters who assist with cases include:

@bargepole

@troublemaker22

They have also added EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY QUID for the exact same series of automated pre-action letter chain that the Supreme Court held in Beavis was already fully (easily) accounted for - and "had to be" within an £85 PCN.

No wonder the Tory Govt called out the added false fees as 'extorting money from motorists'.

Wakey wakey Labour Ministers. Your Options Assessment was hopelessly naive and plain wrong in terms of binding case law regarding recoverable sums in private parking. And the Labour Options Assessment ignored POFA Sch4 (maximum sum) and the Late Fees Regs (late fees were deemed by the CJC as not appropriate for consumer contracts) and it ignored the CRA 2015 (proportionality) and the DMCC Act, to boot (costs must be prominently shown at the outset).

ChirpyChicken

And being TFL @Coupon-mad the law change will still not apply given they are a statutory authority and as expected as per the other thread on TFL
With a non driving keeper even better and highly defendable as this is indeed a TFL car park
This should therefore be very focused defence for any hearing  Leading a 🐎 to water so to speak

Car1980

This is bizarrely pleaded. A parking charge is not a loss. That would indicate they turn up to work every day, sit around waiting to suffer losses through errant parking, and then spend their time time to recover such losses. They would suffer no loss staying in bed.

They are complaining about actual losses and damages incurred, and occasionally lob-in "contractual charges" as an afterthought.

Really home-in on the fact they are pleading tangible losses from alleged breach of contract, yet provide absolutely no evidence of a single penny of damages suffered.

They then confuse themselves by pleading costs. You can't recover costs from trying to recover non-existent losses. 

kryten3000

Yet another attempt by SABA to turn a byelaws contravention into a contractual breach.  Sadly the law changed last week so future cases cannot be defended on that point, but this one can.

Hopefully the driver hasn't been outed already, you don't need to admit who was driving in any defence.

The correct place for these contraventions was the Magistrates Court and the deadline for a prosecution is long past.

I have some useful stuff on this from a previous case if you need it.  This was the Skeleton Argument used successfully last year against SABA

1. Failure to comply with railway byelaws is a criminal offence. The county court is not the appropriate forum to hear a claim for a criminal penalty and in any event the claim is not brought within the statutory six month window for bringing a prosecution, such that the court is invited to strike out the claim.
   
   

2. Further to the above, only the incumbent Train Operating Company (in this case West Midlands Railway Limited company number 09860466) may bring a claim in the Magistrates Court.

3. The Claimant is attempting to use contract law as a substitute for an alleged breach of byelaws.  This is an abuse of process such that the court is invited to strike out the claim.
   
   

4. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Defendant refers to the persuasive appeal in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44)
    

5. The Claimant is unable to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the Defendant, the Registered Keeper, as land controlled by byelaws is not “relevant land” for the purposes of the Act.
   
   

6. The Claimant has shown no evidence that the Defendant was the driver on any of the material dates. 
   
   

7. There is no legal or moral requirement for the Keeper to identify the driver(s) on the material dates. The Defendant refers to the persuasive appeal in Vehicle Control Services v Edward (HOKF6C9C).
   
   

8. The Claimant is attempting to recover an inflated sum which is an abuse of process not supported by the Protection of Freedoms Act, the Supreme Court Beavis Judgment or the Consumer Rights Act.  The Claimant is well aware that their “add-on fees” are not recoverable.

9. The Claimant’s signage is inadequate and is, contrary to the Claimant’s assertions not compliant with their trade body’s code of practice.  It does not specify the “add on” charges which the Claimant is attempting to recover.