Napier Parking Fine

youngie24

Following on I now have this .. any help greatly appreciated

youngie24

this is the rest of the letter received

Coupon-mad

Same answer as to people with DCB Legal claims. Fourth one this morning posting about these tedious law firm templates…

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6594069/dcb-legal-smart-parking-court-claim-defended

This isn't anything new or unexpected. Please just re-read the 8 steps! 😀

youngie24

thank you and will do

youngie24

just re-looked but im still a little bewildered of next steps as this has all been done on MCOL but this is a notice of intention to proceed ?

Nellymoser

But is that not step 2 of the 8 steps? You know it is their intention to proceed...at the moment.

Has step 3 or 4 happened yet?

Car1980

Remember they are using the court system as a cut-price debt collection service. Half will immediately pay up. The rest are sent letters like that in order to keep the pressure up.

Profit before a hearing: 100%

Profit after a hearing, even with a win: 10%

Profit after a hearing, with a loss: negative%

youngie24

ok ill re-look .. I do feel under pressure but that explains why on yur comment ☺

youngie24

ok so ive just looked at the defense and realised ive only updated the below .. shoudl i have done more ??

Defence

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not
comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts
necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of
action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee'
or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not
legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double
recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered
all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as
the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated
letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot
lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed.
Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for
judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the
claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the
sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies
with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult,
which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge
of events,
3.In Response To The Allegation I was the driver and keeper of
the
vehicle and stopped to take a phone call in the early hours of
the morning for an emergency call for a friend on a night out.
I did not park nor did I get out, the engine was still running
and lights fully on. The photos could be anywhere and the images
clearly show this. I have previously
appealed and this has been ignored and also didn't receive any
correspondence until further down the line when payment was being
chased.
I also never saw any signs as it was so dark.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but
to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights
Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and
sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'.
Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the
duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that
this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On
the limited information given, this case looks no different. The
Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior
written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and
dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract,
updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the
landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for
loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any
relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated.
This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall
or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully
distinguished from Beavis.
7. Attention is drawn to:
(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all
costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the
court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by
HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by
'costs of the operation', and(ii) the binding judgment in
ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which
remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case
law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras
419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs'
inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were
disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and
'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ
Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government
launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double
recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called
‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present
Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of
firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market
failure'.
9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable:
see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim
against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for
added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double
recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases
now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened
HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably
discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a
deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants
liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally'
apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has
this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not
apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track
serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended
that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably

Nellymoser

You've lost me, I thought the defence was already submitted on MCOL.