What do I do now... Court Claim form received **Case Dismissed**

[Conniff]

We've gone a long way off the main subject here. The defence is in the charge

that they have entered into a contract to do so

 

They are claiming you have a contract. Were there signs saying a permit was required to park there and were they easily seen. Now they claim you entered into a contract and so the charge is 'you have breached that contract'.

What is claimed in breach of contract is 'damages' which is the actual loss suffered.

 

It has already been shown in court that damages are either the higher or the lower amount, it can't be both. If the losses are for the higher amount, then why would you offer a lower amount and be out of pocket. If it's the lower amount then anything demanded above must be a penalty. The judge dismissed the claim.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?378704-Ignore-better-to-write-to-the-car-park-owner

[Lily808]

This is just an update to my situation - my hearing is for Friday 28th June @ 10am at Bournemouth County Court. This is a conciliation appointment. We will see how this pans out, I find it astonishing that it has got this far and ultimately Devere Parking are taking me to court for £150 + £25 court costs for parking in my own residential car park!

[instrumentsofjoy]

De Vere used to have a tame judge there. Not sure if they still do. Be warned. Have you said that that the only thing they can enforce is a pre-estimate of damages? That anything else is a penalty and that private companies cannot enforce penalties? In particular they are not allowed to charge business expenses since these would be the same if they issue any claims or not. And make sure you have a copy of the contract that allows them to take people to court on behalf of the landlord.

[Lily808]

This is my defence:

I am not liable for the parking charge. Your company have no

proprietary interest in the land and thus unable to offer me a

contract to park on the land. Simply put, you have no locus standi

or legal capacity to contract with me. The enforcement of any

parking charge is exclusive to the landowner.

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the actual landowner to

demonstrate that he has suffered actual financial loss as a result

of me exceeding any contractual terms, if any, in what is a free

private resident car park.

Furthermore, a punitive demand in what is a free private resident

car park, it is contended, would be judged by the court to be

unreasonable and therefore, would be amongst other things an

unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract

Terms Act 1997, which would not be legally enforceable

Furthermore, the charge is not an appropriate amount. It is trite

law that the imposition of charges for parking or trespassing on

another person’s property MUST reflect the actual loss incurred by

that action. Since this is a free private resident car park where

I currently reside, there is no loss to the landowner so any

charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court to be

unenforceable.

[parkstoneboy]

If it's a conciliation appointment rather than a court hearing bear in mind that mediator will be quite happy to broker a deal which could leave you out of pocket and Devere in profit. In fact they will be doing their job if they set up a deal. On the grounds you have detailed above you have no reason to concede anything at all, not one inch.

 

Devere have picked you out as a target to make money, it has nothing to do with parking. If they have laid out £25 on court costs and a bit of time and effort, they will be quite happy with a 'median' deal. It's almost like a game of bluff and your aim should be to show you are completely confident that you would win at court and get Devere to fold

 

I don't know how much you have found out about Devere but remember they only have a 'mailbox' accommodation address in Bournemouth and, since July 2011 are registered as a Ltd Co at another accommodation address in North London with one Director, a lady aged 62 who lives in Chigwell. This lady has never been a company director before and you have to suspect she is fronting the business for someone else. That someone else is named in other threads and likely to be her, slightly younger, and very elusive brother

 

There is no way they have a proprietary interest in the land. You are up against one bloke who runs his business preying on who he sees as easy targets.

 

If you have time visit pepipoo, search under Devere skiboy, Bmthdriver and Devere Swindon. Keep a note of your costs as well, as per skiboy

 

However, do not underestimate 'Devere'. He is clever and cunning, he will know far more about you than you might think, he knows his way round court and proceedings whereas you don't. Do not underestimate the lengths he will have gone to with 'evidence' packs

 

You may not get to meet your adversary if it is a conciliation meeting. However go along with some photo ID and if the 'adversary' is named as Steven Williams ask the mediator if his identity has been checked. A pound to a penny you won't be asked to confirm your identity. Who is Steven Williams, what is his position within Devere ? Is he aged about 60, 5'8", 13 stoneish, large nose, short cropped hair.

 

The one thing 'Devere' doesn't want is publicity, photographs or identification.

 

Become word perfect on your 'defence' before Friday and be able to confidently say it out loud 'verbatim' as many times as you need, to convince the mediator and Devere that taking you to court is going to be a sure win for you, with costs.

 

Think of this as someone trying to [problem] some money out of you, someone who does it all the time, someone who's good at it

 

Be prepared, be confident and have a great result on Friday.

[Scouse Magic]

This is my defence:

 

I am not liable for the parking charge. Your company have no

proprietary interest in the land and thus unable to offer me a

contract to park on the land. Simply put, you have no locus standi

or legal capacity to contract with me. The enforcement of any

parking charge is exclusive to the landowner.

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the actual landowner to

demonstrate that he has suffered actual financial loss as a result

of me exceeding any contractual terms, if any, in what is a free

private resident car park.

Furthermore, a punitive demand in what is a free private resident

car park, it is contended, would be judged by the court to be

unreasonable and therefore, would be amongst other things an

unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract

Terms Act 1997, which would not be legally enforceable

Furthermore, the charge is not an appropriate amount. It is trite

law that the imposition of charges for parking or trespassing on

another person’s property MUST reflect the actual loss incurred by

that action. Since this is a free private resident car park where

I currently reside, there is no loss to the landowner so any

charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court to be

 

unenforceable.

 

Always remember, it is for the claimant to absolutley prove their case and not the other way around. Most Judges dont like these hyenas of society...The fact that they offered you a goodwill gesture tells you they want quick cash as they will almost certainly lose in court.

 

You are a resident and you have a permit so the original PCN should have been quashed as the land owner is being paid the agreed sums.

 

Now then, you will receive a bundle 14 days prior to the hearing and vice versa of the evidence both parties intend to rely upon.

I can pretty much bet 99.5% that the company who issued the pcn would have taken a lovely photograph of the vehicle in question, however the courts require a close up photograph of the dash board which clearly shows no permit on display... If not cay cera cera

[Conniff]

This is your Defence

 

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES VS MS HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN

 

Excel had used a fixed camera to record her number plate as she entered and left the site. It then passed the details to the DVLA, which sent back an email with her name and address.

Ms Hetherington-Jakeman’s solicitor Mr Lee told Mansfield county court that the levy of £100 per offence was an "unlawful penalty clause" intended to "frighten or intimidate" and therefore unenforceable.

 

This argument was accepted by District Judge Wall, who ruled that the fines did not have to be paid.

After the ruling Ms Hetherington-Jakeman said "Excel's behaviour has been absolutely disgraceful throughout. When I tried to contact them and the only way to do that was on a 50p-a-minute premium-rate phone line? I got no response. They said they couldn't discuss the matter.

 

Her solicitor Martin Lee, said: "In future, companies that charge these sorts of sums will have them struck out unless they can prove that they are a proper account of any financial loss.

[steampowered]

See my signature for a draft Defence. Hope this helps.

[parkstoneboy]

It would be good to hear how the OP got on at the conciliation meeting

 

The managing agents would appear to be House & Son and Redhill Court is listed here

 

houseandson.eu/enfranchisement-information ( can't post the full link ) Someone might be able to pick the bones out of the explanation of enfranchisement.

 

Surely no connection between House & Son and Shaun House, erstwhile and notorious clamper and director of failed companies in the area and linked with Devere in the past ?

 

look up Redhill Court Freehold Limited on a website such as companiesintheuk.co.uk List of directors provided, probably your fellow residents, are they aware ? Company secretary, House & Son Property Consultants Ltd

Edited July 2, 2013 by parkstoneboy

[Lily808]

Update - Case eventually went to court a couple of weeks ago - after much deliberation from the judge with Devere parking that that they had no paperwork to prove that I had a contract with them and I already had a contract with the landlord to park there for free with my tenancy - Case was dismissed.

Thanks very much for all your advice.

[Scouse Magic]

Update - Case eventually went to court a couple of weeks ago - after much deliberation from the judge with Devere parking that that they had no paperwork to prove that I had a contract with them and I already had a contract with the landlord to park there for free with my tenancy - Case was dismissed.

Thanks very much for all your advice.

 

Oh Bravo It just gets better and better....Well done and Merry Xmas.....Another great victory

[DBC]

Is it possible to tell in which court this case was held and the name of the judge. Thanks.

[parkstoneboy]

Update - Case eventually went to court a couple of weeks ago - after much deliberation from the judge with Devere parking that that they had no paperwork to prove that I had a contract with them and I already had a contract with the landlord to park there for free with my tenancy - Case was dismissed.

Thanks very much for all your advice.

 

Great result Lily808, got a bit worried you'd caved in before Court because the thread went quiet for so long.