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
    • 560Posts
    • 653Thanks
    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 12
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 11th Apr 18, 8:39 PM
    • 2,296 Posts
    • 4,099 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.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 11th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    • 1,013 Posts
    • 1,947 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Well they are right insofar as 38.6 contains the exemption it does. However, I rather fear they missed the point, since my understanding is that the o/p was coming after part 27 costs.

    You probably will need to apply to set this down for a costs hearing.

    Do bear in mind that discontinuance is not of and by itself a good reason/entitlement to unreasonable conduct costs. Were it otherwise noone would discontinue and the system wants to encourage the abandonment of unmeritorious claims.

    Just a puerile observation: I note Gladstones really don't like emails sent to multiple staff members.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Apr 18, 6:33 AM
    • 2,296 Posts
    • 4,099 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Just a puerile observation: I note Gladstones really don't like emails sent to multiple staff members.
    Missed that too. Has anyone else missed that.

    They also believe the CPR applies only to the "little people" and not the giants of the legal world that they are.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Apr 18, 12:44 PM
    • 2,058 Posts
    • 3,447 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    My post 207 deals with the Rule 38 point.


    The unreasonable behaviour under R27 is that they would have known who the contract was with, and would have had all the information about signage on which claxtome relied, from the very beginning.


    The whole point of the pre-action procedure is to weed out weak claims and weak defences. That's why it obliges you to engage, and to provide your core documents proving/refuting the claim (depending on whether you are C or D). In the process of providing those documents you realise "doh! My claim's rubbish, I'd better shut up" or "doh! my defence is really rubbish, I'd better pay up". The fact that the PPCs consider themselves above the pre-action PD ends up with all these rubbish claims which they blindly pursue.


    There's the unreasonable behaviour, right there. A litigant should assess his claim at the pre-action phase before he pursues it.


    In the case of PPCs you also have the string in your bow that they should and would have known all of this because their own ATA CoP obliges them to keep meticulous records of landowner authority, signage 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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 12th Apr 18, 2:49 PM
    • 560 Posts
    • 653 Thanks
    claxtome
    What do you suggest my next plan of attack is to the letter in post #220?

    Suggestions I can think of:
    a) give up claiming costs
    b) reply to the letter pointing out the errors in what has been said
    c) Contact the court as I threatened to and see if they think it is "unreasonable behaviour" and see if they award costs
    d) Apply officially for a costs order with the usual fee with court
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Apr 18, 2:52 PM
    • 2,430 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I woudl respond to GS. Get them caught on a fork
    They either have to confirm they undertook action without actually seeing the documents - which they do, but they dont want to admit - or they have to somehow explain why they suddenly discontinued when they were provided no new info.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 12th Apr 18, 3:06 PM
    • 1,698 Posts
    • 2,294 Thanks
    Castle
    What do you suggest my next plan of attack is to the letter in post #220?

    Suggestions I can think of:
    a) give up claiming costs
    b) reply to the letter pointing out the errors in what has been said
    c) Contact the court as I threatened to and see if they think it is "unreasonable behaviour" and see if they award costs
    d) Apply officially for a costs order with the usual fee with court
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Or e) go for a Data Protection Act/Harrasment claim for a 25 court fee.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Apr 18, 12:29 PM
    • 2,058 Posts
    • 3,447 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    b). Tell them they've got 7 days to reply otherwise you'll be writing to the court.




    The court can't make you issue an application: costs fall to be dealt with under the discontinuance. So there's no new fee payable. What the court can do is refuse to deal with it on paper and make you go to argue it out at a hearing.


    Shove the threat of e) into the letter at b).
    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.
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

27Posts Today

2,786Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin