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
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 11th Jan 18, 3:26 PM
    • 57Posts
    • 20Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Court Claim Form received - advice please.
    • #1
    • 11th Jan 18, 3:26 PM
    Court Claim Form received - advice please. 11th Jan 18 at 3:26 PM
    Hope you can help...

    We (my elderly mom is the defendant) received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Center (in Northampton) this morning, 11 Jan 2018; relating to a parking incident in December 2013.

    I've read through post #2 in the newbies thread a few times, and as the claimant has filled out the Particulars of Claim box, the next step for us seems to be Acknowledgement of Service.

    Worth noting, the PoC seem a bit sparse. The claimant (VCS ltd / BW legal) hasn't responded to our response to their Letter of Claim; which amongst other things, we requested more extensive information / evidence regarding their claim. Our response to their LoC was late though (38 days after their LoC). See thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5767376

    I imagine that can be addressed later, and at this stage, I just need to send off the AoS.

    Is it better to use MCOL or return the AoS by post?

    I've tried not to include too much information here (don't want to include anything that would identify us), but if there's anything I've missed that would help us, please let me know and I'll include it in the thread.

    Kind Regards,
    Last edited by cosmic4z; 11-01-2018 at 3:33 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jan 18, 6:04 PM
    • 18,333 Posts
    • 23,218 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:04 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:04 PM
    do the AOS online , on the MCOL website , so you know it is definitely done (and is cheaper that postage costs too)

    you may want to be looking at sending BW LEGAL a request for more information etc , and putting a note in your defence about the sparse details too

    then start to draft your defence and post it on here for critique

    ensure you understand the BARGEPOLE posts regarding the timelines etc

    check ongoing court case threads to see what they are saying and doing, anything over the last 6 to 12 months is fine , especially any similar court cases
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 11th Jan 18, 6:33 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    • #3
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:33 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:33 PM
    Thanks RedX.

    Will follow PPC fighter's instructions for AoS via MCOL (as per post#2 newbies thread).

    Will also check out the case threads, linked to from post #2 on the newbies thread; and any others I come across on the forum.

    We have most of the letters received on this, but can't seem to find the original NTK. Other than that, we have 10 begging letters from various companies (Roxburghe, Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections, DCBL), 2 copies of the letter of claim, a notice of pending claim, and the claim form from the court.

    Once I've researched the case threads, I will post back a list of items I think may be suitable points of defence.

    First time I've had to deal with something like this, all a bit stressful. Thanks so much for your help though.

    Kind Regards,
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 11th Jan 18, 6:38 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    • #4
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:38 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:38 PM
    Also wanted to check; if we lose the case, what the worst outcome? Would it be just to pay the amount being claimed?

    Thanks,
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jan 18, 6:54 PM
    • 18,333 Posts
    • 23,218 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:54 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jan 18, 6:54 PM
    Also wanted to check; if we lose the case, what the worst outcome? Would it be just to pay the amount being claimed?

    Thanks,
    Originally posted by cosmic4z
    no , it would be the amount awarded by the judge (the judgment) and should be paid within one month , preferable asap after the judgment , to avoid credit score issues

    this MAY be the amount claimed , or it could be less , usually less because you will be objecting to all the add on fees they should not be claiming

    a typical loss could be 175 , but could be less

    if you win , you can claim up to about 95 in costs etc

    you can and should be asking for copies of the NTK, signage , landowners contract etc too, so get them to issue you with their evidence , which in any case you will want at the DQ stage or later when the evidence stage arrives for both sides

    any lack of evidence right now should be highlighted in your defence , especially after the protocols changed last october
    Last edited by Redx; 11-01-2018 at 6:57 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 18, 7:05 PM
    • 58,415 Posts
    • 71,930 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 11th Jan 18, 7:05 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Jan 18, 7:05 PM
    Also wanted to check; if we lose the case, what the worst outcome? Would it be just to pay the amount being claimed?
    Originally posted by cosmic4z
    Probably less because there is an argument against the added 'costs' too.

    Is Mum disabled (not Blue Badge - any medical condition that might explain, for example, an overstay)?

    Was it for that, at a retail park? Which one?

    Or a residential flats car park - where the keeper lives? Or what?
    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.

    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 11th Jan 18, 10:47 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    • #7
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:47 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:47 PM
    you can and should be asking for copies of the NTK, signage , landowners contract etc too, so get them to issue you with their evidence , which in any case you will want at the DQ stage or later when the evidence stage arrives for both sides

    any lack of evidence right now should be highlighted in your defence , especially after the protocols changed last october
    Originally posted by Redx
    Thanks RedX.

    So far, we've send one document to BW legal, our reply (heavily borrowed from a post on here) to their Letter of Claim: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j1e65tprduwi3kg/AACWWimqu2tLfRp6NSke5ed8a/2018-01-05?dl=0

    In which, we request the following:

    1. An explanation of the cause of action.
    2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper.
    3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
    4. What the details of the claim are; for how long is it claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    6. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1.
    7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.
    8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).
    9. Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

    Looks like I overlooked a request for the NTK (assumed we already had it). So far, they have not responded to the above request (and their PoC seems a bit sparse).

    If I may ask, at what stage do I, A) request the NTK, and B) make a fuss over their potential breach of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct?

    Kind Regards,
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 11th Jan 18, 10:55 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    • #8
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:55 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:55 PM
    Probably less because there is an argument against the added 'costs' too.

    Is Mum disabled (not Blue Badge - any medical condition that might explain, for example, an overstay)?

    Was it for that, at a retail park? Which one?

    Or a residential flats car park - where the keeper lives? Or what?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks Coupon-mad.

    My mom isn't disabled or a blue badge owner. She is very elderly though, and says at the time of the incident she had a sprained ankle.

    It was for overstay at a retail park in Sheffield, is it okay to say which one? (am aware people from the other side may be monitoring this forum, and don't want to give anything away that would help their position, or weaken ours).

    Kind Regards,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 18, 12:25 AM
    • 58,415 Posts
    • 71,930 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:25 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:25 AM
    My mom isn't disabled or a blue badge owner. She is very elderly though, and says at the time of the incident she had a sprained ankle.
    Arthritis, rheumatism, asthma, gout, long-term respiratory or other medical issues? Anything chronic, or recurring? All considered protected under the Equality Act, and people often don't realise they do meet the definition of disability.
    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.

    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 12th Jan 18, 3:24 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Thanks Coupon-mad.

    At the time of the incident, she was suffering with Cervical Spondylosis, and also Chest Infections.
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 12th Jan 18, 4:30 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Couple of questions.

    1. Do I need to request a copy of their first letter, presumably a NTK (as we don't have one)? Should I do that now, or further down the line?

    2. From this point forth, do I need to send duplicates of any letter, both to the claimant and the court? (someone mentioned on another thread, it didn't help that they sent a letter to the court, and no copy to the claimant)

    3. I am using the claimant's contact email, 'contact@' rather than the more specific, 'vcs@' (the email domain is same in both cases). Both email addresses are printed in their LoC, the latter on the front page, the former on page 2. If it does not disadvantage my position, I imagine I should use the one that is least helpful for the other side.
    Last edited by cosmic4z; 12-01-2018 at 4:39 PM.
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 17th Jan 18, 12:59 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    I'm feeling a bit lost here (not to mention stressed and anxious). A bit like I've wondered down a massively complex rabbit hole, and I'm not sure where to start. Would totally appreciate a little friendly guidance.

    Broadly speaking, I'm struggling with the following:

    1. Not sure if I need to (or how to) request a copy of the NTK (that we don't have).

    2. Not sure if I need to tell the court I suspect the claimant may be in breach of the pre-action protocol (or do I just mention that as part of my defence).

    3. I don't understand the difference between my Defence, Witness Statement, Skeleton Argument. Are these 3 separate items, is there a link explaining what goes in which?

    Thank you for your patience, and taking the time to help.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 17th Jan 18, 1:19 PM
    • 2,139 Posts
    • 3,592 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Write to the court enclosing a copy of the LBC and your response in which you asked for information:


    Dear Sirs,


    Claim xxxxxx


    I am writing to request that the court orders a stay of the above Claim due to the Claimant's refusal to comply with its obligations contained in paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, and paragraph 5.2 of the Protocol for Debt Claims which was in force on the day the Claim was issued.


    I enclose copies of the Letter Before Claim and my response, in which a series of questions were asked which were designed to help me to understand the claim, consider my position in relation to it, to put any defence to the Claimant and to then enter into meaningful dialogue with the Claimant in an effort to resolve matters, or at least narrow the issues (paragraphs 3, 6(b), 9 and 12 of the Practice Direction and paragraphs 2, 4.1, 5.1 and 6 of the new Protocol).


    Paragraph 7 of the new Protocol makes it clear that paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction continue to apply. Paragraph 13 is clear that parties are expected to comply with their pre-action obligations and paragraph 15 gives the court the power, inter alia, to stay any claim to force a party to comply with those obligations.


    It is my view that a stay is entirely appropriate in this case. The Letter Before Claim, and now the Particulars of Claim, reveal very little about what the claim is. Without the information requested I am prevented from defending it properly. This must be against the rules of natural justice, and is a scenario with the Practice Direction and now the Protocol are expressly designed to prevent.


    I ask that the court considers the matter and orders a stay of the proceedings.


    Yours faithfully etc.


    This will probably be ignored at MCOL, so get on and file your defence etc. Then at the DQ stage write this letter again with your DQ (this is the first time a judge is likely to look at the claim/your defence). You may be lucky and get a stay, you may not. I's worth a try and very little effort to write the letter.
    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 17th Jan 18, 1:27 PM
    • 2,139 Posts
    • 3,592 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    3. I don't understand the difference between my Defence, Witness Statement, Skeleton Argument. Are these 3 separate items, is there a link explaining what goes in which?
    Originally posted by cosmic4z
    Defence: filed after your AoS. Sets out your LEGAL arguments. So eg. the Defendant denies liability for the charge because she did not enter into any contract with the Claimant because no contract was offered by the Claimant's signage/Claimant's signage was inadequate. etc. or the D denies liability..... because she was not the driver at the relevant time and cannot be liable as keeper because the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been complied with by the Claimant.


    In your defence you must also make clear what you admit, do not admit or deny, and what aspects of the C's claim you put them to full proof of. Eg the D admits that she is the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx but denies that she was driving it on the day in question.


    WS: filed later on. This contains all the FACTS to back up your legal arguments. It tells your story. So eg if you are defending on inadequate signage, you would say what signs were there, where they were, what they said, and why they cannot have offered a contract. If you were defending as keeper and say POFA not complied with, you'd say when the NtK was received and so on.


    Skeleton: this is not required by the court. However, where you are acting in person and not used to arguing court cases, it is a helpful document because you can hand it up and the judge will read it and you can either more or less read out from it (or use it as an aide memoir) or you can sometimes (if the judge has read it properly) simply ask is there anything unclear in it or which (s)he would like you to expand upon. It makes your job easier on the day. Not everyone does one, but I always recommend it. It will go further than your Defence and WS because it will tie both of those in together, and to the Claimant's evidence too. And it will refer the judge to the relevant parts of your defence/WS in relation to each issue, so it helps the judge navigate his way easily around your case. The easier you can make the judge's job, the more favourably he will look on your case.
    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.
    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 17th Jan 18, 9:17 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Thank you Loadsofchildren123. That really helps to clarify things and puts my mind at ease.

    I've sent off the query to the court, regarding claimant's possible breach of protocol.

    Should I also be asking the claimant for a copy of the NTK?

    Kind Regards,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 18, 9:33 PM
    • 58,415 Posts
    • 71,930 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    At the time of the incident, she was suffering with Cervical Spondylosis, and also Chest Infections.
    Originally posted by cosmic4z
    The former is a long term arthritic condition, meeting the definition of disability under the Equality Act:

    https://www.healthline.com/health/cervical-spondylosis

    She is disabled, if her arthritic neck causes her chronic, severe pain and stiffness that affects her moving around in daily activities, and if it is recurrent or likely to continue or recur, over a period of 12 months or more.

    I'd say yes, it probably will recur, because it doesn't heal/go away. Do you agree? If so, she cannot legally be fined for taking a bit longer to go about her shopping, or the time taken to get to the PDT machine and pay, or the time to get comfortably back into the car after shopping, and leave.

    Service providers MUST make a 'reasonable adjustment' of any arbitrary time limit, allowing for disabled population at large, in anticipation of them needing to take longer than other able-bodied people. No blue badge needed on private land. This case is worth citing to show that paid-for time should in fact buy MORE time for such people:

    http://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

    In that case it was about Council parking (where Blue Badges apply, but that's not the case on private land) and the campaigners forced a policy change to allow an extra hour's parking on top of paid-for time. The case supports an argument for YOUR case too (no blue badge needed, the statutory duty to make adjustments is for any person with relevant 'protected characteristics').

    The retail park is jointly and severally liable for indirect discrimination for having no policy of reasonable adjustment offering more time for this section of the population, many of whom would be elderly shoppers. So hardly an unexpected element of people at that retail park!

    You need to communicate this in your Mum's name, to the Claimant and to the Retail Park, citing their liability for failures under the Equality Act 2010. Urgent! Tell them, in writing, and remind them that the Claimant will be unable to rely on the Beavis case, not least because the Supreme Court Judges remarked that:

    105. 1) The test of !!!8220;significant imbalance!!!8221; and !!!8220;good faith!!!8221; in article 3 of the
    Directive (regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations) !!!8220;merely defines in
    a general way the factors that render unfair a contractual term that has
    not been individually negotiated!!!8221; (para 67). A significant element of
    judgment is left to the national court, to exercise in the light of the
    circumstances of each case.

    2) The question whether there is a !!!8220;significant imbalance in the parties!!!8217;
    rights!!!8221; depends mainly on whether the consumer is being deprived of
    an advantage which he would enjoy under national law
    in the absence
    of the contractual provision (paras 68, 75). In other words, this element
    of the test is concerned with provisions derogating from the legal
    position of the consumer under national law.

    106. In determining whether the seller could reasonably assume that the
    consumer would have agreed to the relevant term in a negotiation, it is important to
    consider a number of matters. These include;
    !!!8220;whether such contractual terms are common, that is to say they
    are used regularly in legal relations in similar contracts, or are
    surprising, whether there is an objective reason for the term and
    whether, despite the shift in the contractual balance in favour
    of the user of the term in relation to the substance of the term
    in question, the consumer is not left without protection
    !!!8221;
    The charge in the Beavis case did not breach the Equality Act 2010, but your Mum's does, so when the Supreme Court Judges decided the following, they had considered the facts in that case alone and the part in bold is highly relevant:
    107. In our opinion the term imposing the 85 charge was not unfair. The term
    does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the
    general law or by statute. But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement
    on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye.
    In your Mum's case the charge for minor 'overstay' is IMHO illegal and she should have been offered a 'reasonable adjustment' to the disabled population at large.

    This offer could be say, on a simple sign/at the CS desks, or clealry stated at the PDT machines themselves, or printed on the PDT tickets, and/or printed on any receipt as a wealth warning: - ''Are you elderly/disabled? If you need more time in the car park, to avoid being penalised unfairly, please ask so we can extend the time limit for you.''

    The charge in THIS case, does 'exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute'.



    It was for overstay at a retail park in Sheffield, is it okay to say which one?
    Yes, I guess that'll be Lamilad's favourite place (apart from Elland Road and Skipton Court)!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-01-2018 at 9:52 PM.
    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.

    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 18th Jan 18, 6:41 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Thanks once again Coupon-mad.

    It was Parkway Central Retail Park.

    I'm struggling to track down the postal address for their management / legal people. Best I have so far is: Parkway Central Retail Park, Sheffield, S2 5AU. This is the location of the retail park site; I imagine their management may be off-site? I'll ring around some of the retail units and ask.

    I've drafted a letter based on your post. I have to confess though, I'm unfamiliar with some of the legal terminology used; and so, my draft may or may not make sense, be appropriate and effective. Also, not sure if I posted the relevant clauses of the Equalities Act. I'll post below.

    Anyhow, thank you once again for all your help.

    ==========


    Dear Sirs,

    Be advised that the defendant is (and was at the time of the alleged parking incident) suffering with Cervical Spondylosis, a long term arthritic condition causing pain and stiffness, which meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act.

    She therefore, cannot legally be fined for taking a bit longer to go about her shopping.

    Service providers MUST make a 'reasonable adjustment' of any arbitrary time limit, allowing for the disabled population at large, in anticipation of them needing to take longer than other able-bodied people. No blue badge is needed on private land.

    In a case involving Norwich Council parking (where Blue Badges do apply, but that's not the case on private land), campaigners forced a policy change to allow an extra hour's parking!on top of!paid-for time. This case supports an argument for our case too (again, no blue badge needed, the statutory duty to make adjustments is for any person with relevant 'protected characteristics').

    In addition, the retail park is jointly and severally liable for indirect discrimination for having no policy of reasonable adjustment offering more time for this section of the population, many of whom would be elderly shoppers. So hardly an unexpected element of people at that retail park!

    I refer you to the Equality Act 2010.

    20. 3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A!!!8217;s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

    20. 4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

    20. 5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.

    21. 1) A failure to comply with the first, second or comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

    21. 2) A discriminates against a disabled person if A fails to comply with that duty in relation to that person.

    Also be advised, the Claimant will be unable to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis case, not least because the Supreme Court Judges remarked that:

    105. 1) The test of !!!8220;significant imbalance!!!8221; and !!!8220;good faith!!!8221; in article 3 of the Directive (regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations) !!!8220;merely defines in a general way the factors that render unfair a contractual term that has not been individually negotiated!!!8221; (para 67).!A significant element of judgment is left to the national court, to exercise in the light of the circumstances of each case.

    105. 2) The question!whether there is a !!!8220;significant imbalance in the parties!!!8217; rights!!!8221; depends mainly on whether the consumer is being deprived of an advantage which he would enjoy under national law!in the absence!of the contractual provision (paras 68, 75). In other words, this element of the test is concerned with provisions derogating from the legal position of the consumer under national law.

    106. In determining whether the seller could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the relevant term in a negotiation, it is important to consider a number of matters. These include; !!!8220;whether such contractual terms are common, that is to say they are used regularly in legal relations in similar contracts, or are surprising, whether there is an objective reason for the term!and whether, despite the shift in the contractual balance in favour of the user of the term in relation to the substance of the term in question, the consumer is not left without protection!!!8221;.

    The charge in the ParkingEye v Beavis case did not breach the Equality Act 2010, but in our case, it does. When the Supreme Court Judges decided the following, they had considered the facts in that case alone and the part in bold is highly relevant:

    107. In our opinion the term imposing the 85 charge was not unfair.!The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute. But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye.

    In our case the charge for a minor 'overstay' is IMHO illegal and the defendant should have been offered a 'reasonable adjustment' to the disabled population at large.

    This offer could be say, on a simple sign / at the CS desks, or clearly stated at the PDT machines themselves, or printed on the PDT tickets, and / or printed on any receipt as a wealth warning: - ''Are you elderly/disabled? If you need more time in the car park, to avoid being penalized unfairly, please ask so we can extend the time limit for you.''!

    The charge in THIS case, does 'exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute'.


    Yours faithfully etc
    Last edited by cosmic4z; 18-01-2018 at 7:01 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jan 18, 1:31 AM
    • 58,415 Posts
    • 71,930 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Don't use 'IMHO' in a formal letter.

    If this is addressed to the retail park, make the beginning have an introduction about the issue,m and the end should point the way forward to what you want - cancellation - and by when (name a date - 31st maybe).
    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.

    • cosmic4z
    • By cosmic4z 19th Jan 18, 5:36 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    cosmic4z
    Thanks Coupon-mad.

    I've found the contact details for property management company responsible for the retail park. No joy regarding contact details of the owner (have tried google, calling the various businesses at the park, the council, planning dept, etc).

    I'll send the letter to the property management company, should I also send copy to the law firm (BW legal)?

    Thanks again for all your help.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 19th Jan 18, 5:45 PM
    • 35,863 Posts
    • 20,102 Thanks
    Quentin
    In para 2 you assert she cannot be fined......

    She isn't being fined,!!
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

3,632Posts Today

9,199Users online

Martin's Twitter