Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 16th Sep 16, 12:42 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 1Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Me Vs Excel - next steps
    • #1
    • 16th Sep 16, 12:42 PM
    Me Vs Excel - next steps 16th Sep 16 at 12:42 PM
    Hi all,

    Just wondered if someone could confirm that what I'm about to do next with Excel Parking is correct.

    Having been through the newbies thread I sent a letter in response to a NTK within the appeal time frame asking the questions set out in your template:
    1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details.
    2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
    3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority.
    4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
    6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
    7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
    8. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

    Today I got a standard response back, not answering any of the questions, just giving me a heap of rhetoric and options to pay up or appeal to IAS. I've read through some other threads and it seems appealing to IAS is pointless and at worst gives a judge an adjudication to return to if it got to court and they feel lazy.

    They did send the photos of the car in question but the registration cannot be determined in them due to flash on the camera I assume. The signage photos are also included.

    I have only responded as the keeper and not the driver, their first paragraph says "we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Parking Charge as the vehicle keeper. We are suggesting you are liable for the Parking Charge on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, unless evidence to the contrary is provided."

    Here's what I'm planning to do:
    Write to them stipulating that:
    - My previous letter was not an appeal but a request for information.
    - They have only contacted me as the registered keeper after they obtained my details from the DVLA therefore cannot not assert an assumption of any kind that I was the driver.
    - Contrary to my request they have not provided the information I requested to make an informed decision.
    - They have provided a photo of a vehicle which cannot be identified as mine due to the missing VRN in the photo.
    - They have provided the signs stating that a "vehicle remaining on this private land 10 minutes after entry is subject to and agrees in full to the Terms and Conditions".
    - The photo of the vehicle was taken at 21:27, and they stipulate that the paid-for parking period ended at 21:26. Therefore the period up to 21:26 was not liable for charge, and neither is the 10mins after 21:26 in accordance with the signage.
    - They have not provided any proof that the vehicle in question (let's remember, not proved to be my registration in the photos) stayed longer than past 21:36.
    - On the evidence presented to me as the registered keeper I will not be paying the charge.
    - Reiterate "Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable."

    Extra info:
    The parking was paid for using the RingGo app so the registration is obviously traceable there.
    The letter they sent me cites Parking Eye vs Beavis and from reading other forum posts it seems this is irrelevant in their case due to the contractual differences between Parking Eye and Excel with their landowers/employers. I thought I would leave this out but could include it if others think it's worth mentioning at this stage.

    Just wanted to make sure by responding in this way I won't be admitting/giving them info they can use subsequently.

    Thanks in advance, and thanks for helping me get this far with the other advice across the forum.

    Non-Payer of PCNs
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 12:49 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,059 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 16th Sep 16, 12:49 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Sep 16, 12:49 PM
    Yes that all sounds reasonable.

    Brace yourself for the blizzard of letters from 'BW legal' who will shape up to take this to court and will try to double the sum for no reason at all that would stand up!

    I would recommend you pore over BW Legal threads on here and pepipoo forum from now on!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Grimble
    • By Grimble 16th Sep 16, 1:17 PM
    • 412 Posts
    • 495 Thanks
    Grimble
    • #3
    • 16th Sep 16, 1:17 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Sep 16, 1:17 PM
    Quote from the former head of POPLA when London Councils run it, Mr Greenslade analyses some of the intricacies around keeper liability, correctly pointing out that
    there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Harry Greenslade is a barrister ask them if their quote if from a solicitor or barrister, when they spout Elliot v Loake which was a criminal case which relied on Police statements and forensic evidence.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 16th Sep 16, 2:24 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    • #4
    • 16th Sep 16, 2:24 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Sep 16, 2:24 PM
    Thanks both, much obliged. I'll keep this thread updated if what I get back could be useful to others.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Sep 16, 3:35 PM
    • 9,518 Posts
    • 9,290 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 16th Sep 16, 3:35 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Sep 16, 3:35 PM
    I've read through some other threads and it seems appealing to IAS is pointless and at worst gives a judge an adjudication to return to if it got to court and they feel lazy.

    Not everyone agrees with this. Some of us think that appealing to the IAS serves a very useful purpose indeed.

    If your appeal is rejected, and rumour has it that 80% are, you will have an unsigned piece of paper which turns on its head all established norms of fair play, all the tried and tested rules of adjudication, and comes down heavily om the side of the PPC.

    The IAS is owned/run by an ATA, who are run by a firm of solicitors called Gladstones. It is suspected that the adjudicators are employed by Gladstones, which is why the decisions are unsigned.

    Show the adjudication to a judge, and point out its shortcomings provenance, and it is unlikely imo that a judge will give it much credence.

    Your choice, but do not dismiss the value of an IAS appeal.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 19th Mar 17, 11:22 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    • #6
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:22 AM
    • #6
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:22 AM
    Hi,

    Quick update on this. Received a couple of letters from BW Legal, including final LBC on Friday (17.03). Have reviewed the advice in post 2 on Newbie thread and pepipoo, so will respond again refuting the debt and referring BW back to Excel, since they have not responded to my requests for information.

    Edit: I did appeal to IAS by the way, which, of course, was rejected.

    Is there any other killer line worth putting in to attempt to stop this getting as far as court?

    Thanks for the support. !!!65533;!!!65533;
    Last edited by WillNotPayPCNs; 19-03-2017 at 11:25 AM.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 19th Mar 17, 11:30 AM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 2,712 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #7
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:30 AM
    • #7
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:30 AM
    Hi,

    Quick update on this. Received a couple of letters from BW Legal, including final LBC on Friday (17.03). Have reviewed the advice in post 2 on Newbie thread and pepipoo, so will respond again refuting the debt and referring BW back to Excel, since they have not responded to my requests for information.

    Edit: I did appeal to IAS by the way, which, of course, was rejected.

    Is there any other killer line worth putting in to attempt to stop this getting as far as court?

    Thanks for the support. !!!65533;!!!65533;
    Originally posted by WillNotPayPCNs
    This poster has just been advised on a response to a bwl final notice, might be something you can use.
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5619887
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 19th Mar 17, 11:51 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:51 AM
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 17, 11:51 AM
    Thanks Lamilad,

    That's the one I've got ready to go. Appreciate the help !!!55357;!!!56842;
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 8th Apr 17, 12:10 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 17, 12:10 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 17, 12:10 PM
    Update: Sent email as per above. Letter received today from BW confirming file is on hold while they query back with their client and await their further instructions.

    Let's see what their next move is...
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 8th Apr 17, 1:22 PM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 2,712 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Standard template response from BWL, as the next letter will be that states they've considered you letter and reject the points you made for the following reasons... blah blah!


    You doing everything right so far but as CM says above they are shaping up to issue court proceedings and nothing you say or do will derail their automated conveyer belt system for issuing claims.


    So start reading up on what to do when the papers arrive - all explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread... and look forward to the day you defeat them in court; as virtually every poster assisted by this forum does.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 12th Jan 18, 10:23 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Hi everyone,

    So - the day has arrived, court papers came through yesterday with Particulars of Claim included. I've read (but will re-read) post #2 in the Newbies thread, and do the online bit on responding to the claim form.

    What I'm a bit worried about (and this is my own fault) is that I'm not sure I can remember where all the correspondence to date is. I'm fairly sure I issued things online, but could be in an old email (initial PCN was issued about 18months ago). So before I gather my thoughts and start writing my defence draft is it necessary for me to trawl through paperwork and email accounts to gather that all up?

    TIA.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 12th Jan 18, 10:42 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Actually cancel that. I think I have everything I might need having found my log in to the IAS complaint I made.

    So I'm ready with a defence draft - should I post it here (I know the PCN operators trawl these sites so wanted to check first).

    Thanks guys.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 12th Jan 18, 10:54 AM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 2,712 Thanks
    Lamilad
    So - the day has arrived, court papers came through yesterday with Particulars of Claim included
    Presumably BWL have shown their usual disregard for CPR 22 by signing the poc "BW Legal Services"?

    is it necessary for me to trawl through paperwork and email accounts to gather that all up?
    Specifically what correspondence is it that you think you've lost. It would help if you still have copies and any communications you've sent to them, and their responses.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 12th Jan 18, 10:55 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Hi Lamilad,

    They have signed it BW Legal yep.

    I have the copies of everything I think - yep

    What I was most concerned about was their response with the photos, but I have those in the IAS complaint so all good.
    Last edited by WillNotPayPCNs; 12-01-2018 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Update.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 18th Jan 18, 10:21 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Hi,

    I'm a bit unsure, should I post my proposed response in here for review?

    Thanks.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 18th Jan 18, 11:52 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, that helps.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 18th Jan 18, 12:10 PM
    • 9,518 Posts
    • 9,290 Thanks
    The Deep
    I hope you have considered asking for "unreasonable conduct" costs for your time under CPR27.14(2)(g) when you win.

    Not pofa, do not know who was driving, (have they mentioned Elliott v Loake), failure to answer reasonable questions, threats, harassment,

    Are you considering a counterclaim for wrongful use if personal data or harassment? It stops them from pulling out on the court steps.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 18th Jan 18, 12:45 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Defence:

    I contacted Excel Parking after I received a notice to keeper requesting information relating to the alleged parking charge.

    They have provided me with:
    - A generic response to appeals, not answers to any of the questions I asked.
    - A photo of the vehicle which cannot be identified by the VRN as it is obscured.
    - The signage from the car park in question, which is not a photo so I cannot be certain it applies to the place the vehicle is claimed to be parked.
    - The signage which states "a vehicle remaining on this private land 10 minutes after entry is subject to and agrees in full to the Terms and Conditions".

    Excel have not provided any proof to me as the keeper that the vehicle in question:
    - belongs to me.
    - stayed longer than the 10 minutes after the paid-for period.
    - is legitimately the subject of any parking charges.

    This charge is brought before court by Excel on 2 points:
    1. I was the driver of the vehicle.
    Excel have confirmed that they have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that I am liable for the Parking Charge as the vehicle keeper. They suggest I am liable for the Parking Charge on their own "reasonable assumption" that I was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, unless evidence to the contrary is provided.
    My defence to this point is two-fold:
    - Excel have not been able to provide me evidence that my vehicle was even photographed, since the VRN is not visible in the photograph they provided.
    - Barrister and former Head of POPLA, Harry Greenslade analysed some of the intricacies around keeper liability, correctly pointing out that there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.
    - Excel have not responded reasonably to any of my requests for information.

    2. The vehicle was parked longer than 10 minutes after a paid-for period.
    My defence to this point is that the only photographic evidence supplied to me is a photograph taken 1 minute past the stipulated paid-for time, which as previously mentioned does not show the VRN.

    Excel have failed to answer reasonable questions, asked within the timeframes set out by them, and instead embarked on an unreasonable, threatening and harassing series of letters set out to make me fearful of exercising my rights to seek evidence before I part with £100. I took time to appeal to the IAS on the matter who dismissed my claim in swift order without assisting me in receiving further evidence from Excel which supports their claim for the parking charge. This also leads me to wonder on the purported independent nature of the Independent Appeals Service itself.

    Given the length of time this has taken to arrive at the stage of court proceedings I must presume that it has been Excel's intention to only pursue aggressive means of seeking payment, evidenced by their correspondence style, internal processes and procedures being primarily designed to threaten and scaremonger. This matter could possibly have been rectified simply and quickly 18 months ago otherwise. Fortunately I am not a vulnerable member of the public, but I feel sure there are many who receive this same treatment from Excel Parking Services.

    I've tried to keep it simple, please let me know if there is any key points I should enter based on your experience. Thanks everyone.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jan 18, 1:18 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,059 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Same issues as here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5776955

    You are not at WS stage. Why not read Excel defences, such as Lamilad's ones he posted in 2016?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • WillNotPayPCNs
    • By WillNotPayPCNs 19th Jan 18, 11:57 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    WillNotPayPCNs
    Apologies. Have had a read through past defences.
    Have read through this one and made a couple of amends to ensure that everything written applies in my case.
    Here is first draft, thoughts welcome.

    Another question - I read that defence stmts should not be submitted via the moneyclaim online service, because of formatting chewing up etc. To clarify - I should print and post this, correct?

    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    Preliminary
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract, but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    “1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.”

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background
    4. It is admitted that at the time the parking charge was issued the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings.

    5. It is not admitted that on ******* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ********.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked.

    6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
    6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    6.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on ******* asking for:
    a) Full particulars of the parking charges
    b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd
    c) The full legal identity of the landowner
    d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority.
    e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
    The claimant has not responded with any of the above information.
    7.1 An appeal was made to the IAS on ****** stating the Defendant had only received generic responses to correspondence. This was dismissed.
    7.2 The Defendant wrote in response to a Letter Before Court from BW Legal on ******. BW Legal referred the case back to the claimant, whose next action was to pursue court proceedings.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

    8. Excel Parking Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    8.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    8.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

    9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    9.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    10. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    10.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.


    11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    11.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    11.3. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    11.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    14. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, BW Legal, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name - Signed - Date
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,054Posts Today

5,861Users online

Martin's Twitter