A S Parking keep demanding I name driver despite my appeal as the owner.

[silverfox1961]

If they thought they had a case, why did they not try it on earlier. No need to answer that.

 

Now, if it did go to court and they won (unlikely) then so long as the claim is paid before the date stipulated (usually 28 days) then nothing will show. If not paid within the timeframe then you're stuck with a judgement on your credit file for 6 years.

 

I wouldn't worry about it getting that far.

 

It's about time this unscrupulous industry was regulated instead of agreeing to a code of practice then ignoring it.

[ericsbrother]

read post #22

They wont send anyone round to your door, no-one would be brave or daft enough to want that job knowing they arent going to get paid for the grief they will get from the occupier.

They can only add these fees if they win a claim by default. A defended claim will result in them not being able to enforce these silly add ons as it is a contractual sum they are arguing about. When you buy a packet of crisps the shopkeeper doesnt double the price because you didnt have the right change and then add another 50p for the joy of queueing at the till does he?

They know it is a non-starter but they are hoping that the thret of a bill of a couple of hundred quid will persuade you to pay them the unwarranted £100.

If you do lose a court claim and pay up within the time ordered by a judge you dont get a CCJ

[Liverpool59]

Thanks guys.

 

When you say win a claim by default, do you mean that It goes to court and I don't show?

 

I take it if I lost, and I won't, then the judge would decide about costs and not them?

[silverfox1961]

Thanks guys.

 

When you say win a claim by default, do you mean that It goes to court and I don't show?

 

I take it if I lost, and I won't, then the judge would decide about costs and not them?

 

Correct. Don't show and they win.

With the small claims court costs are fixed to the amount of the claim (£100) plus court fee and solicitors fixed costs (usually £50) They cannot claim more. As they would be the claimant they would normally employ a solicitor to act for them. This will cost them a damn sight more than £50 (more like £300) which they cannot get back so they would be on a loser from the start which is why these companies pick their cases carefully.

[Liverpool59]

Lovely.

 

Many thanks for your advice.

[Liverpool59]

Hi, I have just received a letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors regarding the above claim. I'm sure you will know the content.

Strangely they don't even appear to have the date of the claim correct. Anyway, they have given me 14 days to respond providing a full account of the circumstances leading to the charge and who the driver was. It states and bless a satisfactory response is received they will start proceedings to recover the money. I assume court proceedings.

 

They state that the amount that is claimed may increase, but you have already rebuffed that in your last post.

 

My plan is to respond to the letter as requested with a bullet point summary of everything that has taken place. But alas, given everything you have said about them in this thread, and their connections, I assume it won't make any difference.

 

Your advice would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Thank you.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Does it say they 'will' start proceedings or that they 'may' please?

 

HB

[Liverpool59]

Hi,

It states, "unless a satisfactory response is provided, we are instructed to start proceedings against you without any further notice in order to recover the amounts due and costs associated with the recovery of them"

 

Thanks for your help.

[Liverpool59]

It also states "The amount that is claimed may therefore increase in terms of costs and any interest that is recoverable"

[ericsbrother]

you should respond to Gladstones and tell them that "their client failed to adhere to the protocols of the PoFA to create a keeper liability and that both you, as the proprietors of the IAS and they know any legal action will be vexatious and vigourously defended as such".

 

They are clealry trying to browbeat you into naming the driver so they can bypass the protection in law you currently have.

[Liverpool59]

Thanks for the reply.

 

I found this paragraph from a page by Thomsons Law about parking and it states:

 

The Claimant (the parking company) will have to prove you are liable. If they cannot prove your liability the claim will be dismissed and you can apply for your costs (travel expenses to court etc) to be paid. However if the parking company are successful, you will not only have to pay the PCN you will also have to pay the court fees and the Claimant’s costs. If you do not pay this within 14 days the Judgment will be registered against you as a County Court Judgment (CCJ) and will affect your credit rating.

 

Is this correct? As I understand it the claimant costs are limited to 150. Would there be court costs?

 

Could you explain please about how they would bypass the protection I have if I was to name myself as the driver?

Out of interest, would the judge be annoyed that I hadn't just named myself as the driver in the first place?

As at the beginning of the thread I had actually replied to them as the owner, without naming the driver, which they ignored. They then wrote again as a NTK which as mentioned was even out of time.

Sorry if this sounds repetitive. I just want to get my facts straight before replying. As mentioned, I am quite happy to defend it in court as I believe they are truly in the wrong.

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

the court costs are about £50 and another sum of the same for their hired solicitor.

You have just grabbed a sentence without considering its context. The thing is they will lose because they would be suing the wrong person in the first place. That is why they keep asking for the name of the driver, as they cannot create a keeper liability as the POFA wasnt held to. They know they cannot sue you without coming a cropper so your response to this latest threat should be short but make clear that they are no "honest broker" or unaware of the facts when it comes to this parking matter.

Google is your enemy as well as your friend

[Liverpool59]

Hi, thanks for the reply.

 

All noted.