Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a contractual relationship between parties - according to the hearing notice.
    • I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.   Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.   Observations in blue, changes in red.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out.    The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • Can you just remind us what is meant to be happening tomorrow
    • Thanks for your reply, we returned home to find the lock tampered with and it had been broken into. Our alarm system had gone off and we have the log of which systems within the house had been triggered showing they had been in the house. There was a letter left from a supposed bailiff addressed to a complete different property. The letter said they had been acting on behalf of SSE energy company. Our home and street are clearly signed, we have no idea how they have managed to mistake our home for the other property! SSE told us not to call the police and they would get back to us within 48 hours, no explanation or apology. We contacted the police anyway and got a crime number. Thanks 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Urgent Help Please Re Petrol Allowance


Tommyw242424
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4150 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello

 

I have been offered a new job and must decide today if I am to accept. As part of the job I get a car allowance, to maintain (tax insure etc etc) a car. For business mileage I get to claim 12p per mile.

 

The car is mine but the company pay the allowance.

 

Is 12p the correct figure to claim back?

 

Many Thanks in anticipation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will advise as soon as they are available.

 

Here some info, not sure it is relevant to your question

 

Fuel-only mileage rates

 

HM Revenue & Customs advisory mileage rates for employee private mileage reimbursement or employer reimbursement of business mileage are:

1 June 2010

 

These mileage rates came into force officially on 1 June 2010.

Baseline fuel mileage rates Rates per mileEngine CapacityPetrolDieselLPGUp to 1400cc12p11p8p1401 - 2000cc15p11p10pOver 2000cc21p16p14p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome,

 

Not something I'm too clued up on but this link should help................

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cars/advisory_fuel_current.htm

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

 
 

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

12p per mile will bearly cover the petrol cost of a standard car. For using a private car, the tax man allows you to be paid 40p per mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that. The reason for the reduction at 10,000 miles is that at that point the tax man deems that the fixed costs of VED, insurance etc have been covered and beyond that he only allows for the fuel, depreciation, and wear and tear etc that carry on being an expense.

 

If your company pay you less than 40p/mile, you are allowed to claim for the "lost" value on your tax return at the end of the year.

 

http://www.contractorinfo.co.uk/index.php?q=node/210

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite so crem. The 40p allowance only applies if a contractor and both allowances only apply for 2 years max. The contractors place of work is normally deemed to be the home address. As the OP will be an employee then the true rate is around 28p per mile. Any claimed mileage especially if travelling on business from home, if an employee, must be distance covered less the distance from home to normal place of work. The problem with these figures is that they are so far out of date given the increase in fuel costs and have not taken at all into account inflation for some years. However, if the OP's normal place of work has been relocated then one can claim for the difference as you say.

 

Whichever way you look at it, 12p is back in the stoneage as are the current rates. Most responsible companies offer a sensible rate or access to a pool car if you are requried to use your own for business as they realise the running costs and the insurance implications as pointed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it, 12p is back in the stoneage as are the current rates. Most responsible companies offer a sensible rate or access to a pool car if you are requried to use your own for business as they realise the running costs and the insurance implications as pointed out.

 

 

Agreed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I got 20p per mile as of 2009, so can i claim more back?

 

 

Yes, but you may need an accountant to help you work out how it is best done. If you use one already, then shouldn't be a problem as they will help you with it within their fee, if you don't have one, then you may have to try working it out yourself. I can't remember which section of your self assessment form it goes on, but in essence, you are claiming that 20p per mile of your taxed income shouldn't be taxed because you had to spend it on a business cost. Note you are not getting 20p per mile back off the taxman, only the tax you paid on that 20p per mile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...