*COURT CASE VICTORY* A S Securi-T v My Joe

[petej2811]

*LATEST NEWS*

For those of you interested in the progress of these matters through courtrooms up and down the country I have some news for you.

Only one company I know has actually sued anyone in the courts and that company is A S Securi-T.

A case was heard between A S Securi-T and a gentleman I was helping who contacted me through this site at Halifax County Court on the small claims track. I provide the details with the permission of the unnamed defendant.

The long and short of the case was that the defendant had parked in a free car park for 'Staples' and gone to shop for a while. The signeage detailed that the car park was for the use of customers only. There were no further terms detailed thereupon. The defendant was gone some three hours and returned to find nothing on his vehicle. He left the car park.

Some six weeks later he received a letter from the claimants, A S Securi-T. They were requiring payment of a penalty of £60. The avenue used was the contract route.

This was escalated to £257.74 when the matter was filed at Northampton County Court some months later.

Their particulars of claim were, to be blunt, absolutely pathetic. It was as though they had been written by a child. They read - "Staples in Leeds is monitored by A S Securi-T Ltd for the landowner. Signs around the site clearly display the terms and conditions which form the basis of an implied terms of contract and that a Parking Charge Notice will be issued if breached. On 4th January 2007 at 12:41 the defendant's vehicle was parked without authorisation breaching the rules and regulations and was consequently issued a PCN ref XXXXXX which was sent through the post. The PCN stated that a payment of £60 was due within 14 days. We received no payment , prompting us to send a reminder letter. Only then we received an appeal, which was unsuccessful. This was ignored, prompting us to pass this case to our Debt Recovery Company to try to recover this debt. This claimant claims interest under etc etc...."

I laughed when I read this, of course. Can anyone point out the flaws in this claim already? Naturally a defence was entered and it was very comprehensive. I would conservatively say that it destroyed the claim completely. In fact the claim was stayed at the request of the defendant as the particulars were so poor as to completely fail to illustrate just why any money was due at all and how the claimants had reached a sum of £257.74 owing after only issuing a ticket for £60. The claimants did elaborate on this, however the district Judge restricted their claim to £80 total.

In the runup to the hearing date today, A S Securi-T attempted, in my opinion, to cause the defendant not to appear at court. They wrote to him, informing him they had asked him for further information, which was not true. They then said they were going to withdraw the case and sue at a later date once this fabled information was received. Naturally this was unacceptable. The defendant wrote to the court to request that the hearing go ahead and that he was of the opinion that this was a dirty trick on the part of the claimants to ensure that the defendant did not appear at court.

On the morning of the hearing the defendant was informed by the court that they were unsure if the hearing would go ahead as they had not received the court fee from A S Securi-T. It seems they want your money but are not, themselves, even prepared to pay for the court's time! My defendant insisted he be heard by the district judge in relation to this matter after the court staff had tried to suggest he need not attend. he argued that he wanted the Judge to hear his side so that the claimants could not put him through this at a later date.

My defendant was heard by the Judge who was not in the least bit pleased that A S Securi-T had failed to appear (FTA). He awarded £50 costs to my defendant.

A S Securi-T now have 14 days to pay my defendant £50. If they do not we will be going to court and asking for the debt to be enforced. I will update you on this progress.

A S Securi-T, the only company to sue and twice they have lost to my defendants.

Of the now 600 or so people who have contacted me, only two have ever been sued. NONE HAVE LOST.

PJ - 600+, Parking Companies -Nil

[stan5131]

Always good to hear of the victories. Well done!

[legaladviser]

Well done. Another case where the cowards fail to appear. No doubt our resident clampers/motorist haters will be concerned.

[green_and_mean]

What would be the point of them turning up it has cost them only £50 probably cost more in wages for them to turn up? In the time it would have taken to attend Court they have probably been busy sending more letters out to those happy or daft enough to pay.

[petej2811]

Thanks for your wise and considered insight.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by petej2811

Thanks for your wise and considered insight.

Compared to the superb insight offered by your pointless sarcasm.

[Sidewinder]

Congratulations Pete

The more people prepared to challenge scammers and fight to the finish, the quicker this form of extortion will be forced to end.

Don't suppose the local rag were interested in the story?

[petej2811]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Compared to the superb insight offered by your pointless sarcasm.

I'll have you know that a great many people find my sarcasm both funny and endearing.

Clearly you're not one of them.

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by petej2811

*LATEST NEWS*

For those of you interested in the progress of these matters through courtrooms up and down the country I have some news for you.

Only one company I know has actually sued anyone in the courts and that company is A S Securi-T.

A case was heard between A S Securi-T and a gentleman I was helping who contacted me through this site at Halifax County Court on the small claims track. I provide the details with the permission of the unnamed defendant.

The long and short of the case was that the defendant had parked in a free car park for 'Staples' and gone to shop for a while. The signeage detailed that the car park was for the use of customers only. There were no further terms detailed thereupon. The defendant was gone some three hours and returned to find nothing on his vehicle. He left the car park.

Some six weeks later he received a letter from the claimants, A S Securi-T. They were requiring payment of a penalty of £60. The avenue used was the contract route.

This was escalated to £257.74 when the matter was filed at Northampton County Court some months later.

Their particulars of claim were, to be blunt, absolutely pathetic. It was as though they had been written by a child. They read - "Staples in Leeds is monitored by A S Securi-T Ltd for the landowner. Signs around the site clearly display the terms and conditions which form the basis of an implied terms of contract and that a Parking Charge Notice will be issued if breached. On 4th January 2007 at 12:41 the defendant's vehicle was parked without authorisation breaching the rules and regulations and was consequently issued a PCN ref XXXXXX which was sent through the post. The PCN stated that a payment of £60 was due within 14 days. We received no payment , prompting us to send a reminder letter. Only then we received an appeal, which was unsuccessful. This was ignored, prompting us to pass this case to our Debt Recovery Company to try to recover this debt. This claimant claims interest under etc etc...."

I laughed when I read this, of course. Can anyone point out the flaws in this claim already? Naturally a defence was entered and it was very comprehensive. I would conservatively say that it destroyed the claim completely. In fact the claim was stayed at the request of the defendant as the particulars were so poor as to completely fail to illustrate just why any money was due at all and how the claimants had reached a sum of £257.74 owing after only issuing a ticket for £60. The claimants did elaborate on this, however the district Judge restricted their claim to £80 total.

In the runup to the hearing date today, A S Securi-T attempted, in my opinion, to cause the defendant not to appear at court. They wrote to him, informing him they had asked him for further information, which was not true. They then said they were going to withdraw the case and sue at a later date once this fabled information was received. Naturally this was unacceptable. The defendant wrote to the court to request that the hearing go ahead and that he was of the opinion that this was a dirty trick on the part of the claimants to ensure that the defendant did not appear at court.

On the morning of the hearing the defendant was informed by the court that they were unsure if the hearing would go ahead as they had not received the court fee from A S Securi-T. It seems they want your money but are not, themselves, even prepared to pay for the court's time! My defendant insisted he be heard by the district judge in relation to this matter after the court staff had tried to suggest he need not attend. he argued that he wanted the Judge to hear his side so that the claimants could not put him through this at a later date.

My defendant was heard by the Judge who was not in the least bit pleased that A S Securi-T had failed to appear (FTA). He awarded £50 costs to my defendant.

A S Securi-T now have 14 days to pay my defendant £50. If they do not we will be going to court and asking for the debt to be enforced. I will update you on this progress.

A S Securi-T, the only company to sue and twice they have lost to my defendants.

Of the now 600 or so people who have contacted me, only two have ever been sued. NONE HAVE LOST.

PJ - 600+, Parking Companies -Nil

Pete

it goes to show these companies can be beaten, im pleased you got the result.

keep up the good work

regards
paul

[petej2811]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Congratulations Pete

The more people prepared to challenge scammers and fight to the finish, the quicker this form of extortion will be forced to end.

Don't suppose the local rag were interested in the story?

They were, as it happens. I forgot to ask if they'd attended. I'll find out and post again.

PJ

[green_and_mean]

My insight which you clearly failed to see was that it is not financially worth it for these companies to attend for the same reason Councils often drop cases before adjudication. The time spent fighting the odd case unless a point of law is being made is not worth the time and effort it involves. It takes hours of staff time to fight one ticket when another can be issued in minutes to someone who will not fight it.

[legaladviser]

They're not attending because it is not worth it and they're too busy. Yeah right. Why then did they issue a claim in the first place? The fact that they were facing a proper defence has nothing to do with it? Funny how they always turn up, ala perky, when they are up against a defendant who does not know how to frame his defence.

[petej2811]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

My insight which you clearly failed to see was that it is not financially worth it for these companies to attend for the same reason Councils often drop cases before adjudication. The time spent fighting the odd case unless a point of law is being made is not worth the time and effort it involves. It takes hours of staff time to fight one ticket when another can be issued in minutes to someone who will not fight it.

Yes, I clearly missed the point, for it is me who hasn't understood much of what I've said lately.

Your logic is lacking, its always been lacking. Its that complete lack of intelligence, I feel, which gives your posts an almost rustic charm. They're like eating in a country pub - you know its crap but dammit its still good fun!

The parking company knew where the defendant lived. It wasn't a surprise. He didn't spring it upon them at the eleventh hour. In fact, as they wrote to him many times there's every chance they had his home address. So we'll have none of this 'not financially worth it' rubbish from you, my boy.

It wasn't worth it because their case was las laughable when submitted as it would have been this morning. I take it you did, with your superior, deity like mind, peruse the particulars? Tell me, oh lord, which part of that formed a case worth turning up to court? Had I been them and written such drivel I'd have been ashamed to show my face in the court building, and rightly so.

And this utter tripe about making a point of law that you're prattling on about. What point of law is to be made? Its a small claims track hearing. We weren't off on a galavant to the House of Lords. There was no precedent to set. What possible point o law could possibly be worth exploring and used as a case merit point in a setting where there can be no precedent, the normal rules of evidence do not apply and the parties, likely as not, appear as litigants in person (that means they don't have representation)?

Your logic is flawed and as stupid as anything I've heard today. An accolade you seem to win fairly often.

No, suffice to say your name should be changed to 'Green and Didn't think it through'.

PJ

[MARTIN3030]

Come on guys you can do better than this !!!
Lets cool it and leave out the personal stuff on both sides.
Just think of the newbies coming here to read this stuff...lets show them we can inform them and use a bit more tact.

[demon_x_slash]

Isn't a person who constantly files action against various people, and then either doesn't bother to turn up or drops the action at the last minute, classed as a vexatious litigant?