Backdoor CCJ OPS/DCB(L) 2017 Windscreen PCN - got set aside - awaiting hearing date- Outside lines - Vantage point , brighton ***Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

So have you sent the WS off yet?

 

If not I'm free this evening to help improve it, as I'm sure are the other regulars.

[Rmg2020]

Thanks for all the suggestions and pointers. Really appreciated

 

A trainee lawyer friend had helped me with the set aside and she added the transfer of debt. But I will remove.  

I will add the other points that I understand and feel confident speaking about in court if questioned . Just need to put baby to sleep.  I will upload in case anyone can check or at least future people to see how to do it or not to do it  and will submit before midnight!

 

Am I OK to refer to their witness statement? 

[FTMDave]

Yes, of course you can refer to their WS.

 

In yours points 6-9 need to go completely.

 

It would be much better to put headings on your sections so the judge knows which legal points you are raising.  Put "Locus Standi" above your point 10.

 

Above 11 write a title "No breach of contract".

 

12 is irrelevant and can go.

 

Above 13 write "Double Recovery".

 

You need to create two new sections "Signage" and "No keeper liability" and insert the points LFI suggested.

 

Make these changes and you're good to go.

 

If you have time expand point 11 which is your ace.  There was no signage whatsoever to show you couldn't park there, there was no logical reason you couldn't park there (it wasn't for example a staff parking area or blocking an exit door) and it makes no logical sense for motorists to not be allowed to park in huge chunks of a pay car park.  Either the attendant made a mistake and won't admit it or OPS deliberately allow the car park to deteriorate to a worse state than Brighton town tip so they can entrap motorists and issue tickets.

[Rmg2020]

 

final copy WS 

thanks for all your pointers and help and giving me the hope to fight this! 

i havet added the information about POFA becuase i have been reading for an hour and cant get my head round it! 

i have left the points about trying to contact the various law firms or whoever they are that threatned as i want to show that i have tried to resolve this and not just left it to court. 

 

 

defendants WS (2).pdf

[FTMDave]

Well done.  That is much better.  There's not one thing I would change.

 

If you're still awake and have time, even if you don't understand the POFA stuff, it can't harm to include a brief section

 

No Keeper Liability

 

00.  The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s8 [2] [f].

 

At least the argument would be in and you could gen up on it before the court case.

 

Send it off tonight if you're still awake or tomorrow morning when you get up.  You can e-mail the court theirs.  Ideally it would be better to print out and send the fleecers theirs by 1st class post to deprive them of your e-mail address, but as you're cutting it fine for once if you use e-mail so be it.

 

 

[Rmg2020]

sent. gone. stress levels gone down! so now its just wait for the court case right? nothing further to do? 

i could not have done this without you guys. thank you thank you thank you!

 

i have a question that kept me up last night, the original court case back in Feb, one parking solution would have had to submitt a witness statement also and serve to me 14 days prior to the court case right? i never received this . 

[brassnecked]

Excellent,  WS looks good but suggest you mention in a friendly way you found out to the trainee lawyer   how in a Private parking case,  unlike consumer debt  the debt can't be transferred to another Party,  the law firms and DCA's are rentathreats, and can never own the debt, nor take legal action of their own volition, that can only be initiated by the PPC .If it could we would have Lowells etc going on a Claimform  frenzy with transferred sold on Parking debt

[FTMDave]

The first time round you didn't defend, so no, they wouldn't have produced a WS.  There was no need, you lost by default.

[Rmg2020]

Received this today.. 

'We have received your Application dated 22nd May 2021 and note the content.

The Witness Statement on behalf of the Claimant has been filed at the Court and served upon you in response to your Application.

The Court have been notified that our Client’s attendance has been excused at the hearing on 25th November 2021. '

This means they won't be attending? 

Any idea on how that works when they're meant to be setting up the call?

[dx100uk]

Looks like you are going to win by default then.

Telephone hearing? Have you informed the court of your correct numver etc etc

and dont forget to ask for costs like the set aside fee.etc

[Rmg2020]

What happens in the court if it does go ahead ?

Like the actual process ?

Do they read the WS and that's it?

At which point do I ask for the set aside fees?

Can I  ask for the cost of my day off work? 

 

The court have just called me and they've double booked so it maybe relisted . 

[dx100uk]

You are entitled to £90 i believe if you take time off work. But is this not a telephone/video hearing so that might now wash?

[FTMDave]

Any news about if the hearing will go ahead?

 

We'll help with the costs argument but there's no point doing that now if there is no immediate court hearing.

[Rmg2020]

I should hear back today before 1 pm. 

 

Re the day off , the letter said something along the lines of the hearing time isn't guaranteed   court often overruns , so I have no choice but to take the whole day off 

 

Hearing will be relisted within next 6 months 

[dx100uk]

Open

[Rmg2020]

Hello!

Me again 

I have a court date of 24th March 

 

The claimant have resent me their bundle from the original court date. Do I need to do anything in prep or just turn up?

 

Thanks as always 

[FTMDave]

IIRC the court ordered you to file a WS and send a copy to the fleecers, which you've done.

 

So if you've done everything the court ordered, yes you simply turn up.

[lookinforinfo]

RMG I don't know if you are keeping abreast of the new CoP and the changes do help your case. One of them isn't even a change it's just confirmation of the  original Act that the amount on the signage was the maximum that could be charged.

 

A Government minister described the additional charges as "a rip off" and in the new CoP which though  the government  accept that some changes may take time to implement those that can be done straight away should be.

 

"We recognise that many of these changes – like bringing private parking charges in line with local authority charges – will take time to implement.

 

The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation."

 

That was said by Minister Neil O’Brien, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution

 

{Despite the same font as above these are my comments.  It was always Parliaments objective that parking charges should be limited to the amount quoted on the signage as confirmed by PoFA Schedule 4 s8[2][d] and s9 [2][d] "as specified in the notice".

It is the greed of the rogue parking operators that have introduced the extra rip off charges that have brought about the new CoP coming in to force. Still OPS are trying to push through their unlawful charges surely confirming that they are one of the rogue companies that the Government are aiming to rein in.

 

They have even gone as far as to confirm in their contract with Periworld right at the start 1a  "OPS will always adhere to all legislation as set out as part of PoFA 2012. They didn't comply with parking charges and they didn't comply with Town and Country [Advertisements] Regulations where they need planning application for their signs and ANPR cameras. 

 

New CoP

9. Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

In their WS point 12 they state that the driver accepted the contract by parking. As the entrance signage was not capable of forming a contract [either non existent or too small to be read while driving past -whichever is correct] there was only an invitation to treat so no contract formed.

 

In their WS at point 19 they said two things that were incorrect. There is no obligation on the keeper to reveal who the driver was and the Court will not assume that the driver and the keeper are one and the same. Nor is the lack of indication of the name of the driver an indication that the keeper was the driver. 

 

As you said in your WS they showed a lot of photos of signs but none of them could be pinpointed to anywhere on the car park-they could have been stock photos held by DCBL. I don't think they even marked on their plan where you were parked?

 

The NTK is not PoFA compliant despite Mr Green so averring. Under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s9 the NTK MUST comply with the wording in that section. It doesn't so not compliant and the liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

 

It's a real dog's breakfast of a WS. No wonder Mr Green only printed his name when it came to the bit about telling the truth which makes the WS inadmissible?

 

Bear these points in mind when it comes to the actual date of the hearing. These are points that you have already brought up in your WS in different ways.

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Rmg2020]

oh wow thank you!!!! i will read up on this properly!

[lookinforinfo]

A little bedtime reading. Please read the preamble as well as the actual changes themselves.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

[Rmg2020]

i 

 

I WON the case or whatever the right terminology is! THANK YOU to all of you for everything!!

[honeybee13]

Well done :). And thank you for coming back to tell us.

 

Please tell us more about how it went. 

 

HB

[dx100uk]

Well done 

Did they turn up?

Did you win costs?

 

Generally.   Expand with more detail later so as to help others in the future please 

 

Dx

[brassnecked]

Excellent, if you can post up details it would be brilliant

[lookinforinfo]

Oh I am pleased for you. You've gone from having a  CCJ wiped off your record and now you have won a second time against them. What a relief for you.