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
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 22nd Sep 17, 5:22 AM
    • 613Posts
    • 730Thanks
    claxtome
    ES fluttering ticket going to court
    • #1
    • 22nd Sep 17, 5:22 AM
    ES fluttering ticket going to court 22nd Sep 17 at 5:22 AM
    This is a classic 'fluttering ticket' case.
    Paid for parking in a Private Pay and Display car park and displayed ticket.
    Ticket has somehow flipped over so didn't show details.
    The number on the back of the ticket doesn't appear to correlate to the number on the front.

    Sneakily no PCN on car it was sent through post.

    PPC is an IPC member so no POPLA appeal route.

    Timeline:
    Received PCN/NTK 7 days after day in question through post.
    Appealed NTK.
    Got ignored and received a chase letter about a month later
    Received LBC/LBCCC about a month later
    Sent off 1st reply 10 days later
    Received roboclaim reply
    Sent off 2nd reply 10 days after that
    Then received County Court claim from Northampton. (usual roboclaim particulars)
    I extended the defence submittal date to 28 days online.


    All the redacted documents are in this dropbox folder:
    https://db.tt/ZpiVevD8Dd

    Defence posted to MCOL and emailed to Claimant.
    WS and evidence bundle sent in early December.
    Hearing will be end of March.
    Skeleton Argument (SA) produced and submitted.

    [Update 28/03/18]
    Got confirmation by email today that ES wants to discontinue.

    Note: This is not my first battle against Private Parking firms (third) and have done as much research as I can, time permitting, prior to setting up this thread.
    I have always had good advice on this forum that I appreciate.
    Please can you help me fight another.

    Thanks for reading.
    Last edited by claxtome; 28-03-2018 at 2:14 PM.
Page 11
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 28th Mar 18, 1:11 PM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    no. no. no.


    This matter has not concluded.


    There is the question of costs which you conveniently disregard.


    Claxtome, go to peperlini's thread and use her precedents to apply for costs. You'll see the court wouldn't give her costs, but it was worth a try and in fact the court was wrong (see my post - I think you should probably insert into the letter that the quoted rule doesn't apply to this scenario). I'll try and post a link in a minute.


    The costs you need to apply for are your costs of preparing your defence, WS and all the prep you did for court, site visits, stationery, postage etc.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 28th Mar 18, 1:12 PM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74043870#post74043870
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 28th Mar 18, 2:11 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    Claxtome, go to peperlini's thread and use her precedents to apply for costs. You'll see the court wouldn't give her costs, but it was worth a try and in fact the court was wrong (see my post - I think you should probably insert into the letter that the quoted rule doesn't apply to this scenario). I'll try and post a link in a minute.


    The costs you need to apply for are your costs of preparing your defence, WS and all the prep you did for court, site visits, stationery, postage etc.
    Not read the thread or looked at the link yet.
    Will do tonight and follow whatever it suggests.

    Can you still claim the costs you mention even if you submitted your costs at court for effectively the 'expenses for the day in court' = 110?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Mar 18, 2:49 PM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    YEs, because their discontinuance so late in the day is clearly unreasonable
    The costs of the day were ordinary costs you can claim
    Unreasonable behaviour can lead to additional costs beign awarded.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 28th Mar 18, 2:51 PM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Yes. You can say that withdrawing less than 24 hours before the hearing is unreasonable behaviour. They have no new information at all - they've had your defence and your WS since [x date], and although you sent new information about the signage on [x date] this was clearly information already within their knowledge and possession (given that it relates to their own signage, of which they are obliged by the IPC CoP to keep meticulous records). So the facts upon which they decided to discontinue have been known to them for weeks and months, and there is simply no explanation for why it took until less than a day before the hearing for them to withdraw.


    You only need to read the last posts on that thread - the early ones relate to the case, it is the later ones that relate to the costs application. The judge rejected the claim, misapplying a particular rule (can't remember which off the top of my head), I think you should see off the possibility of the same happening to you by quoting that rule and making it clear that it does not apply to your costs claim.


    A letter/application in writing won't take a great deal of effort. It may well not succeed but I think it's worth trying.


    Well done for seeing off number 2!
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 28th Mar 18, 3:12 PM
    • 1,925 Posts
    • 2,617 Thanks
    Castle
    You only need to read the last posts on that thread - the early ones relate to the case, it is the later ones that relate to the costs application. The judge rejected the claim, misapplying a particular rule (can't remember which off the top of my head), I think you should see off the possibility of the same happening to you by quoting that rule and making it clear that it does not apply to your costs claim.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Your Post No 77 I'm presuming:-
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74043849#post74043849
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 28th Mar 18, 3:21 PM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    yes. what that rule says is that on a discontinuance it is AUTOMATIC that the other party gets costs. But this doesn't apply in small claims. That doesn't mean that the court has no power to award costs, it means it's not automatic. So Rule 38 doesn't prevent the court from exercising its discretion under 27.14(2)(g) and the Practice Direction/Protocol, to award costs. To ensure that whoever reads your application doesn't misapply Rule 38, I'd just add in a mention of it in your application along the lines of "Rule 38 says...... however the court still has a discretion under rule 27.14(2)(g) and the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct to award costs and that includes costs made following a discontinuance. It would be against the rules of natural justice for a claimant to seek to avoid the risk of a costs order by discontinuing at the last minute, leaving the defendant unable to pursue his costs.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Mar 18, 3:44 PM
    • 3,722 Posts
    • 4,532 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Especially if, as is usual, loss of leave has happened anyway - loss of pay maybe less provable, but with less than 24hours to go ime off, unpaid or leave, has been organised for ayone not self employed.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 28th Mar 18, 4:07 PM
    • 2,434 Posts
    • 6,974 Thanks
    bargepole
    Especially if, as is usual, loss of leave has happened anyway - loss of pay maybe less provable, but with less than 24hours to go ime off, unpaid or leave, has been organised for ayone not self employed.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I had a similar situation with a late discontinuance notified by Gladstones.

    I got the client to send them a costs schedule for 360, based on the fact that the case all revolved around signage, and their client had previously lost a case involving exactly the same signage, which they would have known about right from the start.

    They made an offer of 180, which the client accepted.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 28th Mar 18, 4:19 PM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    bargepole, do you know what happened with this case in the end?
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/c3gf78fe-parking-property-management.html
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Mar 18, 4:31 PM
    • 8,860 Posts
    • 11,726 Thanks
    beamerguy
    claxtome

    Great news ...... do claim for your costs.

    Another Gladstones load of rubbish bites the dust again
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 28th Mar 18, 4:34 PM
    • 2,434 Posts
    • 6,974 Thanks
    bargepole
    bargepole, do you know what happened with this case in the end?
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/c3gf78fe-parking-property-management.html
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    It went back to court before a different Judge, and upon closer examination of the full lease document, it turned out that the parking space was not demised under the lease, so the primacy of contract argument was less persuasive than originally thought.

    The Judge advised the parties to go outside and try to agree a settlement, which they did, so no order or judgment was made.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 28th Mar 18, 4:35 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    Just phoned court. Was told the case had been settled. Will check one final time in the morning but starting to believe it has been discontinued.

    Thank you for the recent posts about claiming "unreasonable costs". I will certainly try to get the maximum out of it. Particularly as it looks like a DPA breach may have occurred due to ESPEL signing a contract with an unknown company who was supposedly linked with landowner..
    Last edited by claxtome; 28-03-2018 at 9:06 PM.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 29th Mar 18, 12:23 AM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 2,822 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I agree with LOC but I suspect the judge will tell you that you must apply for a costs hearing.

    It's not right (IMHO) but it's what seems to happen.

    This case may be of those rare occasions where it is actually worthwhile submitting the application and making your case, based on what LOC had said above.

    It's, obviously, a risk but one that I, in your shoes, would take with some confidence. I just wouldn't be ok with them putting me through all this then shrugging their shoulders and walking away unscathed.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 29th Mar 18, 9:43 AM
    • 2,371 Posts
    • 3,956 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    There's nothing to be lost by trying, since the precedent documents were already created on peperlini's thread anyway. Claxtome has now adapted them with some input from me, and will no doubt post them. He will send them to the PPC inviting them to agree costs before he submits it to the court (and claxtome, in your letter to them point out the issue over the wrong entity entering into the contract, and that the entity didn't even have the required legal personality to enter into any contract because it was not a limited company or a person).
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 29th Mar 18, 10:57 AM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    Thanks Lamilad and LoC for your further comments; have taken note.

    I will be sending off, via email, to the Claimant's solicitor Gladstones either tonight or tomorrow the Costs Schedule claiming "Unreasonable Behaviour" when ready. I will post a link to it to my dropbox account and will probably cut and paste it here to for those who can't access it.

    This forum has been fantastic to me and having a little compensation for all my efforts would be the icing on the cake.

    BTW Phoned the court again this morning and definitely it has been discontinued so won't be brushing the moths off my suit...

    Time to enjoy my weekend.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Mar 18, 11:21 AM
    • 8,860 Posts
    • 11,726 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks Lamilad and LoC for your further comments; have taken note.

    I will be sending off, via email, to the Claimant's solicitor Gladstones either tonight or tomorrow the Costs Schedule claiming "Unreasonable Behaviour" when ready. I will post a link to it to my dropbox account and will probably cut and paste it here to for those who can't access it.

    This forum has been fantastic to me and having a little compensation for all my efforts would be the icing on the cake.

    BTW Phoned the court again this morning and definitely it has been discontinued so won't be brushing the moths off my suit...

    Time to enjoy my weekend.
    Originally posted by claxtome
    And if you have to serve an LBA against Gladstones,
    make sure you don't use a "pimped out" letterhead and
    copy the Gladstones rubbish
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 10th Apr 18, 10:21 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    Due to a family emergency I have had other things to focus on unfortunately.

    Today I emailed Gladstones my Costs Skeleton, claiming "unreasonable behaviour", an ultimatum either reply to me email by end of Friday otherwise I will submit with court my Costs Skeleton.

    Will post any update when I hear it.

    Will also update my Dropbox with what I sent gladstones when I can.
    Last edited by claxtome; 10-04-2018 at 10:23 PM.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 11th Apr 18, 8:31 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    I got the following reply from Gladstones today:
    Dear Xxxxxx,

    As I am now handling this case, there is no need to copy any other member of the team into emails.

    Without prejudice and with respect, as alluded to in your e-mail dated 10 April 2018, CPR 38.6 (3) is unequivocal - "This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.". It was safe in this knowledge that our client was in a position to discontinue its claim.

    If you proceed with the course of action set out in your letter we will advise our client to:

    (a) Insist the matter only be dealt with if the correct application fee is submitted to the court;

    (b) Robustly oppose the application for among other reasons, the rule set out above; and

    (c) Ask for its costs on the basis that should you proceed despite the clear and unequivocal CPR on this point, you would be acting unreasonably.

    We trust this matter concluded.

    Kind Regards,
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 11th Apr 18, 8:39 PM
    • 3,664 Posts
    • 5,998 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Seems clear enough that they will be asking for unreasonable behaviour costs for your asking for unreasonable behaviour costs.

    You can then in turn double-up etc.

    Wonder who let them pass their law exams.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
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

3,636Posts Today

4,301Users online

Martin's Twitter