UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford *** Claim Dismissed with Costs awarded***

[wv600]

Thank you everyone for your help so far.

I have compiled the attached WS, any feedback/advise would be much appreciated.

Many thanks in advance

Defendant WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

It might be only me, but I can't open your uploads.

[Nicky Boy]

They're marked "unavailable" for me Dave...

[FTMDave]

That makes two of us.

[wv600]

Apologies, not sure what happened there....trying again

 

Defendant WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

It worked this time!

Will have a peek now.

[FTMDave]

That is a cracking first draft - well done!

[FTMDave]

However, if it can be improved - why not?

I see you've been looking at other WSs.  You need a little introduction at the start about being a Litigant-in-Person.

In Insufficient Signage/Exhibit 1 is it necessary to show the close-up of their signs?  That's almost showing the signage as better than it is.  I would leave out your 2nd, 4th and 5th photos.

In Penalty flesh it out a bit.  Add that the Claimant will witter on about the Beavis judgment but that your case is distinguished, Beavis dealt with a car park during opening hours when there was an interest in limiting the time cars could stay.

Again in Prohibition flesh it out.  Add some persuasive cases.  There are loads in WSs.

In Abuse of Process/Double Recovery para 14 they have inflated their claim from £100 to £170.  The other costs are allowed.

The rest is superb - well done.

[dx100uk]

sorry the PDF screw up mine

i merged the files earlier but over the last couple of days CAG has been having weird errors and i gave up as i had to go urgently herd sheep for someone.

 

[FTMDave]

Given you usually spend 25 hours a day on the site I think you're let off dx

[lookinforinfo]

To enlarge on Dave's post 58 about the Penalty section. 

there was a famous court case at the supreme Court between parking Eye and Mr Beavis. The Law Lords mused that by charging £100 there was a definite possibility that it was a penalty. The Lords then decided that as PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park well run , it wasn't a penalty.

Therefore it follows that as the business was closed at the time of your visit being charged 3100 is a definite penalty as there is no legitimate interest involved. if a PCN is classed as a penalty the case is thrown out.

 

Your one line statement and missing out "legitimate interest"may end up with Judges missing the significance of the situation, Once you mention legitimate interest they will recall the Beavis case and the mention of the Law Lords of the word penalty you strengthen your argument. And it is great that a motorist is talking about the Beavis case rather than the rogues. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

post hidden

please do not put up docx file

all YOUR pers details are in file info/properties - then they'll know you are here.

file save as .pdf (turn off properties in options click box)

the MEGRE everything to one mass pdf, see the online sites in UPLOAD

[wv600]

Apologies dx100uk, I'm posting the PDF version of my revised WS below for perusal by the experts.

Hoping to post it on Monday.

Thanks in advance for any further advice/guidance!

 

WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf

[FTMDave]

That is a superb WS.

However, I have a few tweaks to suggest.

In (2) "indicating" not "indication".

I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2.

Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay.

I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion.

After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point -

8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.  

In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits.

In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write -

16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.

You also need ot number your exhibits.

The rest is excellent - well done.

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave. I've made the suggested changes and will see if there is any other feedback before posting a final copy.  I would be grateful if you could attached the Beavis judgment as I can't seem to find it.

Do I also need to attach copies of the other judgments referenced in the WS?  And is there an easy way to find them?

Many thank in advance!

[FTMDave]

Finally, finally, finally found it!  It's this para that talks about the legitimate interest and a two-hour parking limit.

57_extracted_WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf

[FTMDave]

No, I think you're fine with the exhibits you've prepared.

Exhibit 1 - photos

Exhibit 2 - para 107 of Beavis

Exhibit 3 - CPR request

Exhibit 4 - Excel v Wilkinson

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave, really appreciate your help!

[wv600]

WS is ready and I plan to post it tomorrow, 29 April.  The court date is 16 May.

I have just realised that I have a flight abroad on 16 May....not sure how I missed this before....?

What are my chances of winning the case if I don't attend the hearing?  I see I have to inform the court at least 7 days prior to the hearing that I cannot attend.

[lookinforinfo]

This is the exact extract from the Supreme Court ruling on parking Eye v Beavis which may, or may not, clarify the position

99.

In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty.

The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.

The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large.

That is an interest of the landowners because

(i) they receive a fee from ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and

(ii) they lease sites on the retail park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a valuable facility.

It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis would be no different).

As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. 

[FTMDave]

In practice - forget about the theory - if you don't turn up you have a 0% chance of winning.

However, all is not lost.  It's perfectly possible that UKPC will bottle it when they get your WS.

It may be telling that they have produced no WS.

In post 45 you uploaded part of the court order.  There will be the date they were supposed to pay the hearing fee by which I'm guessing was 18 April.  Give the court a bell tomorrow and see if they have paid.

Edited April 28 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[wv600]

Thank you FTMDave.

Just spoke to the County Court and the hearing fee WAS paid by UKPC.  

Does this mean I have to change my travel plans?

[lookinforinfo]

Should UKPC finally decide to go to Court you and your wife should attend and you can state that as you were driving and your wife is the keeper there is no case to answer. 

if they  ask why didn't you appeal, you can truthfully reply that you were unaware of the law regarding the requirement for UKPC to have their PCN compliant with the Law until the appeal time had  passed. And as you have subsequently found out, even when the  keeper denies they were driving, so often their appeal is refused and the keeper is still pursued are pursued as the driver.

of course by the time you admit that the keeper was not the driver you can say who was driving since they only have seven months to  send out a replacement PCN so you are untouchable now.

Edited April 29 by lookinforinfo

[brassnecked]

Yes travel plans should be changed if possible, as FTMDave says you would definitely lose if yo don't turn up, they have made such a mess of this they shouldlose hands down.

 

[wv600]

Thank you lookinforinfo.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, I can NOT take my wife to court with me....

With regards to your post #70, do I need to add any of this in my WS?

Also, just to clarify, I am (was) the registered keeper and driver. 

Edited April 29 by wv600