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
    • SamSteel89
    • By SamSteel89 23rd Nov 17, 3:56 PM
    • 41Posts
    • 11Thanks
    SamSteel89
    County Court Claim Regarding Parking Tickets
    • #1
    • 23rd Nov 17, 3:56 PM
    County Court Claim Regarding Parking Tickets 23rd Nov 17 at 3:56 PM
    Hi MSE,

    I have recently received a county court claim against me regarding two parking tickets from a private parking company. This is the first court claim I have received so I am unsure how to continue and would appreciate some advice.

    Background:
    The parking tickets in question are dated 19/11/2016 and 16/03/2017 and are in relation to when my vehicle was parked at my now ex-girlfriends flat. The parking spaces in question are sign-posted 'Visitor Parking', implying they are free to park but underneath on a separate sign it states the spaces are for permit holders only and penalties will be issued without one

    I have had no penalty notices or correspondence regarding the tickets whatsoever until the other week when I received a county court claim in the post for 257 in relation to both parking events.

    Following further advice online, I have acknowledged the court claim via the online website and chose to defend the amount in full. I have not yet received any further information regarding the claim. I have also requested information from the DVLA, asking for any information the parking company requested regarding my vehicle and which dates they attempted this. The DVLA have since responded via a letter which states the company are registered with the IPC the only request made against my vehicle is dated 17/04/2017. I assume this means the parking company has failed to request the information properly for the first parking event but has complied with the rules for the second (being within 28-56 days)?

    I have no idea what to do next, but with all the information online saying most cases will not go to court and indeed if they do, most defendants will win, I would appreciate any further advice to avoid paying this claim.

    Thanks for your time,
    Sam
    Last edited by SamSteel89; 15-04-2018 at 8:23 PM.
Page 5
    • SamSteel89
    • By SamSteel89 15th Apr 18, 8:26 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    SamSteel89
    I suggest you anonymise your name as some ppc monitor these forums and may use it as evidence....
    Originally posted by claxtome
    thanks, i corrected that straight after posting haha
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 2:44 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think a WS is a good idea too, as per the set aside threads where they too get a short hearing.

    DO NOT file or bring the photo of the sign on the wall with terms on it! FORGET THAT ONE.

    ONLY file the one saying 'visitors parking only' and point out in your WS that it does not mention permits in those bays, no does it mention any contractual sum of money purporting to be a parking charge.

    File PACE v Lengyel, as evidence, to try to force the DJ to actually read a PROPER decision:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

    It's a transcript in one of the links there, and there's a blog explaining it here:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

    And state that the maximum sum that the Claimant could claim is the sum on the sign, and there is no sum stated on the vistor parking sign, and no signs, no caveat, no contract.

    Even if the Court is minded to say that the second sign elsewhere on a wall applies, that means the contractual sum remains at the 100 stated there. Not double that and add 50!

    Parking firms not only cannot claim for damages (as confirmed in Beavis, because they are not in possession of the land) but it was also held by the Supreme Court that a parking charge (85 in Beavis) is already significantly inflated to include significant profit over and above the low costs of a parking enforcement model.

    There are no damages and these cannot be added, or this would constitute double recovery and in any case, damages are only possible for a landowner to claim, under the tort of trespass (PACE v Lengyel confirms).

    Fight to distinguish your case from Beavis!

    Sounds like this Judge wants to deal with all parking charge cases as if Beavis applies carte blanche.

    Draw the distinctions, show that this Claimant not only does not have clear signs (unlike in Beavis) but also has no legitimate interest or commercial justification excuse (the main reason that PE got away with disengaging the penalty rule, which is always potentially engaged in parking charge claims). In Beavis it was said that every case must be fact specific and what must be considered in every case is the 'legitimate interest' (or not) and the prominence of the terms & charge on clear signage, otherwise a parking charge falls foul of Lord Dunedin's penalty rules, which still apply.

    You MUST have mentioned signs in your 3 bullet points? So build on that with a decent WS & evidence.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    As above, just to make sure you got it all.

    This will be an uphill task.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 16th Apr 18, 5:52 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Sounds like this Judge wants to deal with all parking charge cases as if Beavis applies carte blanche.
    Hate to be a pooper ..but Beavis does apply carte blanche as it is a Supreme Court case.

    The ratio of Beavis was a secondary contract to enforce the first one IF that secondary contract is necessary. In many cases the first contract will contain enough teeth (GPEOL). Where GPEOL is not enough a secondary one is needed as long as the penalty amount it is not extravagant.

    It's a very simple idea. It's all to do with nuisance and what nuisance needs controlled. And is always relates to the underlying contract - which is what needs identifying first.

    VCS v Crutchley at JLA is a good example of it working for the PPC in practice.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 16-04-2018 at 6:13 AM.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • SamSteel89
    • By SamSteel89 16th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    • 41 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    SamSteel89
    Thanks Coupon but I think I included the information you provided in my WS on the previous page or us it not enough? Thank Emanresu, I will look into VCS v Crutchley
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th Apr 18, 10:05 AM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    A WS is a statement of facts and references to your evidence

    A skeleton is a summary of your defence, the C claim and WS, and how you win they lose. Frankly right now I wouldnt construct a formal one. Just give yourself a bullet point list - starting with: NO CONTRACT TO PAY THAT AMOUNT. The signs YOU followed exactly, another sign cannot override that, and even if they claim the other sign aappleis well the CRA2015 says if something is ambigupous, you win as consumer - you get the most advantageous one possible.

    But you NEED to push for a proper hearing.
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

771Posts Today

5,953Users online

Martin's Twitter