Thanks Andy

Do I understand this correctly: the court expects parties to agree the bundle contents pre-trial - so I can email cfs now - and tell them that I do not accept the extra judgment in my bundle?? and I copy the email to the court?

Or do I send a separate email advising the court that the defendant is attempting to pressure me into including evidence into my bundle that will support their defence, that I don't accept (inadmissible)

I have listened to the Beavis/Parking Eye case.

I am still not sure how this benefits any bank refusing to repay penalty charges and compound interest??

Thanks Andy

 

 

Do I understand this correctly: the court expects parties to agree the bundle contents pre-trial - so I can email cfs now - and tell them that I do not accept the extra judgment in my bundle?? and I copy the email to the court? Yes and tell them why

 

 

Or do I send a separate email advising the court that the defendant is attempting to pressure me into including evidence into my bundle that will support their defence, that I don't accept (inadmissible)

Andy

Great Thanks so much for your help

Have emailed the Sols and forwarded to the court too.

Wonder if they may now suggest settling????

Just one business day left before they incur travel and legal costs...

when my claim is tiny....

Definitely trying to bully me. lets see...

i am a little nervous about the hearing

I have not done this before.

Is there a simple way to prepare?

I do intend tomorrow to read over all the cases I included in my trial bundle. But I am still not sure I understand the 2 key issues about how I can claim they are illegal penalty charges and why I can claim back 10y I did understand but so many months have passed and I have other things n my head now

I will try and simplify the argument if i can, hopefully if i miss anything, others will jump in.

You are claiming the payment of the charges is a mistake of law or a mistake of fact, therefore they are recoverable plus interest in restitution, as per Kleinwort benson. http://swarb.co.uk/kleinwort-benson-ltd-v-lincoln-city-council-etc-hl-29-jul-1998/

You are entitled to compound interest as per the case of sempra at the rate that the defendant re lends the money at, to prevent unjust enrichment and to restore the balance https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/1428828/sempra_metals_a_simple_solution_to_compund_interest.pdf

The Limitation Act 1980 affords you the opportunity to claim back payments made by mistake by virtue of s32 (1)© It states that the period of limitation does not begin to run until you discovered the mistake http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

I may not have worded it 100% correctly but this is the basis of the legalities of why you are claiming them back.

Refer back to your PoC which refer to the above

Thank You

That does simplify it,

I will try to keep it simple in my head at the hearing...

Martin2006 thanks for these links as they are very useful for something I am working on..

MM

Martin2006 thanks for these links as they are very useful for something I am working on..

 

MM

It seems that ParkEye is superceding any other defence. What should I do?

Late evidence is admissable in small claims

So I have no time to assess and argue

Can someone advise on Parkeye / Beavis please. Case hearing coming up and need to be prepared....

How does one argue against this case? Is it relevant or can one still argue KB?

have you a thread on your PE issue?

No.

But it seems that this legislation is what bank defence teams wish to rely on now.

And I don't know how to argue KB is more relevant

sorry getting confused I thought you had a parking eye case running on a parking ticket

ignore me. then

that's ok dx

Does anyone have any info on this recent legislation on ParkingEye?

Would be most useful?

Well yes its all over the private parking forum

But I can't see the relevance to penalty charges

In what was are they referring to it?

I think they're using the Beavis v Parking Eye case ruling as precedent that a penalty does NOT have to reflect the actual costs caused to one party by the transgression of the other.

I have also posted this to your other thread mum

My understanding mum is that in Beavis, the "penalty" charge of £85 is put there as a deterent, to stop people overstaying and thus taking up a parking space for a whole day instaed of the maximum 2 hours.

Perfectly understandable where parking spaces are limited in a shopping center for example, however, that does not resonate with a bank or card charge so imo is irrelevant.

i mean it makes no difference about how long you breach for with a bank/card charge, 1 minute and its £12. 14 days and its still £12.

When the OFT produced the 2006 guidelines, "Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts" the following is stated:

5.3 As a practical measure, to help discourage a swift change in market practice, we are setting a simple monetary threshold for intervention by us on default charges. The threshold is £12

5.5 We regard the setting of the threshold as a provisional practice measure to move the market toward compliance. We should make it quite clear that we are not inviting banks to align their charges at such a threshold figure. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold

It isnt about how we use beavis in our favour, its about how we argue that its irrelevant to your case.