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 12
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 11th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    • 1,176 Posts
    • 2,233 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
    • 3,276 Posts
    • 5,503 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.
    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
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Apr 18, 12:44 PM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 3,929 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
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 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
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,269 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
    • 1,900 Posts
    • 2,576 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
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 3,929 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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Jun 18, 5:12 AM
    • 613 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    claxtome
    I am sorry I feel I let the members of the forum down as didn't have the energy to pursue costs as Loadsofchildren123 suggested.
    My family emergency I mentioned was my mother-in-law passing away suddenly the day after my court appearance. I was very close to her and my wife is finding it hard.

    I will make ESPEL pay in other ways by helping others on here.

    What I will say thank you for all your help and support you gave me over my 3 parking cases over the last year which has a good ring to it with a winning score of 3-0.

    The particular key helpers, though so many, include in no particular order:
    Loadsofchildren123
    Johnersh
    Castle
    nosferatu1001
    IamEmanresu
    Beamerguy
    Lamilad
    Bargepole
    Redx
    Umkomaas


    This last name the forum wouldn't be the same without Coupon-mad

    Sorry if I missed anyone
    Last edited by claxtome; 06-06-2018 at 5:15 AM.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Jun 18, 3:11 PM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 3,929 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Well your precedent costs letter will help others, I refer people to this thread all the time. It takes so much time just to defend in the first place that it's not a surprise you didn't want to devote yet more time to pursuing costs, the victory of the first win (or all 3) feels like enough when you have other things going on.
    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

4,472Posts Today

5,069Users online

Martin's Twitter