PCM ANPR PCN Claimform - Overstay - Anchorwood Retail Park, Barnstaple, Devon ***Claim Dismissed + Costs***

[FTMDave]

What utter idiots.  So a 40% discount on £100 is now £100 is it?  It wasn't when I studied maths at school

[FTMDave]

You know the game from your other thread.  Acknowledge service.  Get a CPR request off.  Etc.

[FTMDave]

Please start a new thread for this latest invoice.

[FTMDave]

@Lazy farmerThe second point  2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant  covers that.  You weren't there so you can't have entered into a contract.  And because we've worded it so generically the fleecers won't understand what you're arguing and won't be able to make up lies in their Witness Statement to counter you 

[FTMDave]

@brassneckedWe started to add the fifth point to cover the Unicorn Food Tax  5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

[FTMDave]

If you have time before going away get a CPR request off like the last time.

[FTMDave]

If you read other threads with "claim form" in the title, you'll soon understand the steps of the legal process.

 

There are four on the last page of our PPC Successes thread.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/14/#comments

 

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

On 24/09/2022 at 14:59, FTMDave said:

If you read other threads with "claim form" in the title, you'll soon understand the steps of the legal process.

 

There are four on the last page of our PPC Successes thread.

Er - why did I write this?

 

We are dealing with the thrasher of Simple Simon in court 

[FTMDave]

The problem with just one argument is that if you get a dodgy judge who discounts it then it's game over.

 

We recommend throwing the kitchen sink in at WS stage, so there are as many arguments to chuck the claim out as possible.

[FTMDave]

I've just reread your thread from the start.

 

In their PCN the fleecers specifically state it is in line with Schedule 4 of POFA.  They haven't respected the 14 days of POFA.  They're screwed.

 

Then they haven't offered the discount which is in all the CoPs.

 

Don't remind Gladstones.  Think about it.  You don't want them to reply.  Then you can state in your WS that you don't believe the fleecers have a valid contract with the landowner, nor that they have obtained PP, and they have refused to produce these following a CPR request.

 

I don't think the 2-hour v 3-hour limit really helps you, as the driver stayed nearly 4 hours.  in any case, where have the fleecers mentioned a 2-hour limit?  I can't see it anywhere.

 

You need to start work on your WS.  Your sections need to be

   - No Locus Standi

   - Illegal Signage

   - No Keeper Liability

   - Invalid PCN/Breach of Codes of Practice

   - Double Recovery.

[FTMDave]

Wooops!  Cross posted with Nicky Boy.

[FTMDave]

I will read the WS later after work, but dx is right, if they don't turn up, 99.9999% chance they will lose.

[FTMDave]

Even for Gladdys, that is an appalling WS.

 

They've managed to conclude that the part of your defence about double recovery was aimed at the £50 legal costs they're perfectly entitled to ask for - and not the £70 Unicorn Food Tax!

 

So now you need to prepare your WS.

 

Sequence of events - a brief description of how you ended up with their invoice.

 

No Locus Standi - they are not the landowner, the "contract" they have produced is a standard one with no names or signatures (forum regular Lookinforinfo is an expert on such things and will no doubt add more).

 

Illegal Signage - you do not believe they have PP, you have investigated this with the local council, they have refused a CPR request to produce PP,  PP is not shown in their WS, this is a criminal matter and no contract can be formed where criminality is concerned.

 

No Keeper Liability - even if a contract had been formed, it would have been with the driver of the vehicle, you were not the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA, both in their PCN and their WS (para 7) they specifically say they are using POFA.

 

Invalid PCN/Breach of Codes of Practice - the CoP of their trade association the iPC states (para 15.2) "A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days" yet they have offered a 0% discount on the £100 PCN.

 

Double Recovery - as this is essentially the same for all PPC claims, and given their huge mess up, I've set out what I think you should use verbatim (except the numbering of course) -

 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

 

10.  The Claimant is quite correct in their Witness Statement (paras 46-49) that they are entitled to add £50 legal costs to the claim.

 

11.  However,  the Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus the justified £50 legal costs plus an additional £70 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.

 

12.  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.

 

13.  Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

 

14.  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.''

 

15.  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 Hamilton  Douglas 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 Parking Eye 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...''

 

16.  The Claimant states in "The Claimant Therefore Claims" section towards the end of their Witness Statement that the Claimant's trade association allows this made-up £70 sum.  It is neither here nor there what a biased, break-away trade association considers as reasonable or lawful.  What matters is what the law in England & Wales considers as reasonable & lawful. 

 

17.  In this section the Claimant actually admits that this sum is due to instructing solicitors - for which £50 legal costs have already been added.  This is a very poor attempt to circumvent the limit of £50 legal costs allowed for this amount of claim at the small claims track.

 

18.  The Claimant's claim (para 24) that the trade association's appeals body "is completely independent of the IPC" is frankly laughable.  Both were set up in 2013 by Mr William Hurley and Mr John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. The IPC, its appeals body the IAS and the firm of solicitors at the time most associated with parking litigation were all run by the same two people, in a blatant conflict of interest.  The Defendant would rather count on an unbiased county court, rather than a kangaroo court established by the Claimant's associates.

Edited December 14, 2022 by FTMDave
Putting the boot in more

[FTMDave]

You're absolutely right that No Keeper Liability is your strongest argument and your ace.

 

I just thought that it made a more logical legal argument "in the right order" IYSWIM, to argue -

 

1.  No contract was formed with the fleecers because it's not their land (Locus Standi).

 

2.  Again no contract was formed with the charlatans because the signage was illegal (Illegal Signage).

 

3.  If the court disagrees with the above and decides that a contract was formed with the conmerchants, then it was between them and a completely different person.  You were not the driver.  They say they are using POFA but have not respected POFA's provisions (No Keeper Liability).

 

It's just a personal preference, I'd be tempted to do things in that order but keep the Locus Standi and Illegal Signage sections pretty brief, not pages of waffle, because as you say the judge may only scan read.

 

Your call.  You're in a superb position given the spivs daren't even turn up.

 

The judge just has to accept one of your points, which the leeches won't be around to counter, and it's case over.

[FTMDave]

Personal details show on DOC files.  I've therefore converted it to PDF.

 

As a first draft that looks excellent.

 

I have a lot to do today, work and then of course Morocco v France ... but promise to look in and comment properly this evening.

[FTMDave]

A few comments.

 

In No Keeper Liability you could beef it up a bit and say that the PCN specifically states "this notice is given to you in line with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012" and also the Claimant in their Witness Statement (para 7) states they are using the Protection of Freedoms Act.

 

They have even admitted on the PCN that the "date this notice is given" is 16 days after the event.

 

They specifically state they are using POFA and then don't abide by its provisions.

 

In Locus Standi I wouldn't mention the CPR request because that has been superseded by the rubbish contract included in their WS.  Zero in on that.

 

In Illegal Signage add the obvious point that there is no mention of PP in the fleecers WS - because none exist.

 

I wouldn't worry about their silly points 36 & 37.  Of course you're the registered keeper.  So what?

[FTMDave]

I'll have a look this evening.

 

World Cup final time now

[FTMDave]

That is superb work.

 

I've converted to PDF, again, because your personal details show up on DOC files.

[FTMDave]

It depends what address is specified on the claim form.

 

Pretty sure it'll be Gladdys.

[FTMDave]

Usual Gladdys' lies then.

 

Good that they admit "the requested planning permission does not exist".

 

As for converting to PDF, simply use one of the free sites mentioned in the upload guide, such as  https://www.ilovepdf.com/

 

[FTMDave]

So the sole director of the IPC is - William Kenneth Hurley.  Formerly director of ...

 

... Gladstone's solicitors!  So no conflict of interest and  no connection between the two then

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[FTMDave]

Is that 2-0 to you now in court victories against these money-grabbing companies?