Jump to content

Lt.Columbo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Lt.Columbo

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Why would I take photographs and write a witness statement when 90% people on here advise that the case will not actually go to court and there will be a strike out. I've been taking it one step at a time, again as advised by users on this board. It isn't my fault they want a witness statement 3 months before court is it. I haven't found examples of witness statements to go off, only defences which is why I'm in the dark on this.
  2. That's weird since court date is sometime in spring. I've never written a witness statement, how long typically are we looking at? My main argument is there are no signs on one of the entrances. I don't want to write what I've written in my defence. A witness statement is just an account of what happened from my view right?
  3. Looks like I will be going to court next year... I received N271, N24 and now notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing). Timing is completely crap for me as I received this just before I went away for 2 weeks and have until the 28th to do witness statement, take pictures etc. With xmas coming up it's gonna be a struggle. The form says the witness statement must "contain all the evidence of the witness". Is this what was in my skeleton defence that I submitted? Court date is a while away so not sure why I need to do this just before xmas. I have read around that it's usually a month beofre the hearing that you submit the witness statement.
  4. Not sure I follow. I did not think it was mandatory to submit the CPR or part 18 for that matter. Just the defence. Otheriwse it may have stated it on the claim form surely. Ive never seen a CPR recomended and part 18 only a handfull of times across the boards on the claim form threads.
  5. Hi, I am at similar stage to you. I am probably going to submit my defence today. Here is my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?464544-Excel-BW-claimform-PCN-18-04-2015-peel-centre-in-Stockport(1-Viewing)-nbsp The other thread at same stage too http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?442660-Excel-BW-peel-centre-Stockport-PCN-23-2-15-now-claimform-help(2-Viewing)-nbsp Not sure why no one pointed you to them directly. Good luck
  6. Decided not to send the CPR or part 18 for that matter so will be submitting my defence tonight I think.
  7. Yes I thought it may be too long, but I have seen longer around the forums. People say it adds to the next possible phase of drafting your statement of defence, i.e. less work. Is this an issue? I know there is a limit of 122 lines? But I have read you can upload a file. Is it too late for the CTR (I have until 07/09). I've been really busy the past couple of weeks and have not researched as thoroughly as I would have liked.
  8. Hmm I might have confused myself. I dont think the signs have changed after the Cutts case according to Watchdog (a youtube link i cannot post!) I have not submitted a CPR 31.14 discovery request. What is it? Another draft defence below. I have used a lot of points from a post over at Money Saving Expert from a reputable poster. ******************************************************************************************************* The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons: 1. There is no evidence as to the identity of the driver on this occasion and as the parking event alleged relates to a date some 18 months ago, I cannot with certainty recall who may have been driving the car that day. Nor am I required to name the driver, under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. It remains for the claimant to prove its case. Liability for the charge is denied because the claimant has not complied with the mandatory wording and set deadlines for 'keeper liability'. 2. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail. 3. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives. 4. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details. 5. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Excel Parking Services Ltd. 6. Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. a) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. 7. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out. 8. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent as per Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore, no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. There can therefore be no contract through performance. Additionally, large parts of the sign are in blue on yellow, a combination warned against by the British Parking Association code of practice as hard to read. 9. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine –v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation. 10. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter. 11. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. This is wholly because the signs are complex with a mass of text and the £100 parking charge notice is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”. 12. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver. 13. According to Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, indicates that it is a criminal offence if a car parking sign or ANPR camera is erected without advertisement consent. It is believed that this has not been adhered to at the car park in question, and if it indeed has been then the necessary evidence by way of planning permission for the signs should be produced. 14. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes, and Excel Parking Services Ltd have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 15. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.
  9. Hi, below is my draft defence. I would appreciate it if someone could give me feedback on it. I must admit it is going over my head a bit. ******************************************************************************************************* The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons: 1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. 2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Excel Parking Services Ltd. 3. Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. a) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. 4. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent as per Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore, no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. There can therefore be no contract through performance. 5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. 6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver. 7. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable. 8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and Excel Parking Services Ltd have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 9. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
  10. I cannot find it. Unless you are referring to the Martin Cuttts case back in 2010. I thought the signs had been revised since then (even though excel said they were adequate).
  11. Sorry I probably jumped to conclusions by reading Pastry's thread, hoping they would go away. I have just noticed that he has received the DQ. I have subscribed to his thread and following closely.
  12. have done the AOS on the MCOL website now. Have to prepare my defence. I parked at KFC and the signs I did not see. That is my main argument. I will just search on here and tweak what other successful people have sent.
  13. Name of the Claimant ? Excel Parking ServicesLtd Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 05 Aug 2016 Date of issue 05/08/2016 + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 24/08/2016 + 14 days to submit defence = 07/09/2016 (33 days in total) What is the claim for – 1.The claimant's claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 18/04/2015 (Issue Date) at 19:35:33 at Peel Centre - Stockport Anpr Charging Scheme Std (60-100). The PCN relates to [Vehicle Manufacturer] under registration [.......]. 2.The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. 3.The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant t section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 18/04/2015 to 04/08/2016 being an amount of £9.50. The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions. What is the value of the claim? Amount claimed £163.50 Court fee £25.00 Legal representatives costs £50.00 Total amount £238.50 Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Excel Parking Services Ltd Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? N/A I hope that is correct. Thanks
  14. Hi, I have now received a county court letter with the claimant being Excel Parking Services Ltd. Issue date being 05/08/2016. There claiming £163.50, court fee £25.00, legal representatives costs £50.00 bring the total to £238.50. This is just ridiculous. I want to defend it as they are asking an absurd amount for a ticket that would have cost a couple of quid. It was very quiet the time I went and there is no way they can claim for loss of business. They will have to prove that the car park was full. I had no idea I needed to pay so the signs are obviously crap. I know it will only affect my credit if I don't cough up the money at the end or don't turn up to court, I have nothing to lose. What are my next steps?
  15. Hello, Problem 1 On the 18/04/2015 I parked at the peel centre in Stockport and didn't realise I had to pay to park there. I stayed for 97 minutes. I received a parking charge notice from Excel on the 28/04/2015 after googling this company I followed advice to ignore them. I received another letter from Excel, then 3 debt recovery plus letters, 2 Zenith letters, a letter from excel stating my account has been passed onto there legal team, then 2 bw legal letters - the last one of which is a titled 'final notice'. The outstanding balance has fluctuated between the different companies (obviously as a tactic to get me to pay at a discounted rate), but they are requesting £154.00 (£100 parking charge and £54 for excels legal fees). Obviously this is all my own fault as I didn't buy a ticket and in hindsight I would have done. The £154 there asking is ridiculous. They state "In the event Excel issues County Court proceedings, and successfully obtains a County Court Judgement, you will likely be liable for the Balance, court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest". if they did take me to court what would be the price I have to cough up? Because I don't really have a case apart from maybe the signs are small and that's why I didn't think I needed to pay (but I'm sure they have rectified this as someone said the same thing years ago). They do mention that a CCJ can affect my creditworthiness but I'm sure that's if I do not pay after losing or do not turn up to court? I appreciate any help you may have Thanks ******************************************************************************* Problem 2 Typically, I also have another on going case with a PCN. I worked at a supermarket up until January of this year and I received a PCN from civil enforcement limited on October 2015. I told my personnel department who said they would deal with it. April 2016 I received a letter before action from civil enforcement ltd that states unless I pay £140 within 14 days of the letter they will issue proceedings. Obviously it's been more than 14 days and I haven't been summoned but everyone says do not ignore a letter before action. What's funny is I received a PCN from these approximately a year before this one and my personnel sorted it out and explained I was a member of staff. Then I get this random one! Even though I was parking there every Sunday for years! So, do I ignore this and simply embarrass them in court as I obviously was a member of staff and my personnel department notified them years ago? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...