Deal - ihateparkingfines

[IHateParkingFines]

I'm too in the same boat as the above, received a letter exactly the same as Delbook stating that I owe £215 with a date of service of 25th November 2014.

Looking forward to a response as to how to proceed with this, do I need to contact the court to advise that I will need my 28 Days to prepare my defence?

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

I'm too in the same boat as the above, received a letter exactly the same as Delbook stating that I owe £215 with a date of service of 25th November 2014.

Looking forward to a response as to how to proceed with this, do I need to contact the court to advise that I will need my 28 Days to prepare my defence?

Yes you need to file acknowledgement of service.

M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

Thanks M1.

Just filled out the acknowledgement and will have it in the post today.

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

Well i will never say don't pay as i believe everyone has to make their own choices and for some the easy way is best because stress, time constraints etc make it so.

If you take on CEL/DEAL with a decent defence, with which i'll help, then they will not turn up at court and you'll win and learn a lot about a process you had no desire to learn. I'll be writing a defence soon but i only have the court papers of Delbrook to use in that and he has indicated that he doesn't wish to proceed. The more info you give, the better.

Anyone who pays should negotiate 1st.

Once i start to help i'll be splitting things up so each user has their own thread otherwise i'll be scratching my head a lot and wondering wtf is going on.

M1

I can provide scans of the documents i received if that will be of any help?

Am I right in saying that in the event of this going to court and my defence doesn't stand, will I be facing a fee much greater than the initial £215 that they're after?

Cheers,
Iain.

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

I can provide scans of the documents i received if that will be of any help?

Am I right in saying that in the event of this going to court and my defence doesn't stand, will I be facing a fee much greater than the initial £215 that they're after?

Cheers,
Iain.

Yes for docs, no for more. There may be, limited, costs but the claim can't get bigger aside from interest.

M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

Yes for docs, no for more. There may be, limited, costs but the claim can't get bigger aside from interest.

M1

M1,

The docs are attached. I spoke with the court as well this morning regarding the best way to respond, which they have advised was via email. Would it be best to knock up a cover letter to outline a reason as to why I intend to defend all of the claim? Or shall I just send the Acknowledgement of service over with my completed details?

Thanks M1, really appreciate your help here, i'm sure by helping me you're also helping many others..

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action

Just file AOS and we'll get to the defence.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

Ok i'm using the claim form from http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...729#post494729 to base this on as i haven't seen yours. I also assume you had a letter such as http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...-made-bad.html
















IN THE [TOWN] COUNTY COURT CASE No.
BETWEEN
[IVOR PROBLEM] Claimant
AND
[JUSTIN TIME] Defendant
AMENDED DEFENCE




1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.




2. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, a brain surgeon.


3. I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number xxxxx and was the driver on xxxxx


4. I have no knowledge of paragraph 1 in so far as Civil Enforcement Limited and the landowners are concerned and the claimant is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowners. If they do not have a proprietary interest in the land they have no basis to demand money and no right to assign a debt to another party. In any event if the assignment is legal it was not for the full amount. The claimant is attempting to recover sums that they are not entitled to should they be entitled to anything, which is denied. I believe the claimants claim for £130 is an attempt to be unjustly enriched.


5. Paragraph 2 is outside my knowledge and is neither admitted nor denied.. The claimant is put to strict proof.


6. Paragraphs 3 & 4 are denied. I did park at xx.xx The claimant is put to strict proof they are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Ltd to motorist; The gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Ltd’s. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.


7. Paragraph 5 is denied as the claimant was not entitled to demand money from the defendant as none was owed. In any event, even if it was, the sum demanded was not as the full amount of the penalty was not assigned.


8. Paragraph 6 is denied. Interest is not due as there is no base debt on which interest should be charged.


9. The claimants claim fails to meet CPR 16.2 (1) (a). It does not include a concise statement of the nature of the claim. It's either a contractual charge, damages for breach of contract or damages for trespass.


10. The claimants claim is also denied for the following reasons :-


A. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking without payment and was therefore a penalty clause. It was not an offer to pay for a period of parking. The charge was held to be a penalty in the appeal ruling of Civil Enforcement Limited v McCafferty Their claim is based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. I further submit that the loss to the landholder is zero .


B. A charge of £130 is above and beyond that which the British Parking Association expects and is a trade association of which Civil Enforcement Ltd are a member. 19.5/6 of the trades code of practice states "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.




19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading. "












Case Law Relied Upon:








a) With regard to point 4 & 6, there are two Court of Appeal judgments of note, ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012 EWCA Civ 1338] and HMRC v VCS [2013 EWCA Civ 186]. In the first, the court ruled that the parking company could not take legal action in their own name. In the second the court ruled they could. The nature of the relationship between landowner and car park operator, and the wording of the contract between them, is key to distinguishing these two cases. It is instructive therefore to compare the current relationship between ParkingEye and landowner, and the wording of the contract, to see whether this more closely resembles ParkingEye v Somerfield or HMRC v VCS. The defendant submits that it is obvious the relationship is more like the ParkingEye v Somerfield case. In 3JD04329 ParkingEye v Martin (12/05/2014 St Albans) District Judge Cross found ParkingEye’s contract to be more like the Somerfield case than VCS v HMRC, and
dismissed the claim. No transcript is currently available.












b) With regard to point 9 I rely upon the following cases and evidence:








OBServices v Thurlow (Worcester County Court, 2011) (Appeal hearing before Circuit Judge).3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as any loss was to the landowner and not the Claimant. “The problem which the present Claimants have, however, in making this assessment is that on any view, any loss is not theirs but that of the land owners or store owners”








3JD02555 ParkingEye v Pearce (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) This case followed on from the previous case and Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled the same way.(No transcript is available)








3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). The judge ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the loss for a four minute overstay was negligible.








3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of ParkingEye’s pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive. As ParkingEye could not explain how their alternate calculation of £53 was arrived at, he accepted the defendant's calculations. The
transcript is not yet available.




The Office of fair Trading agreed with this, pointing out that all costs must be directly attributable to the breach, that day to day running costs could not be included and that the charge cannot be used to create a loss where none exists (Appendix A).








Appendix B contains the minutes of the British Parking Association where parking charge levels were decided, showing that there was no consideration whatsoever given to pre-estimate of loss, and that at least one factor was to set the charges the same as council penalties. The minutes also show there is no financial basis for the 40% discount but that it is needed to ‘prevent frivolous appeals. Any charge set to deter is a penalty. A charge set to the level of a penalty is a penalty.
















Conclusion








I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed, or any amount at all. I invite the Court to strike out the claim as being without merit, and with no realistic prospect of success.


Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Dated this 2nd day of June 20....
To the court and
to the Claimant


..........................
JUSTIN TIME
Defendant
of [Address],
at which address he/she will accept service of proceedings.






The 2 appendix items can be found http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html although the lettering is different you should know which is which


M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

Thanks M1.

Will have a look at this once I'm at home and will fill in all the gaps needed.

Once completed, whom would I send this to? The court referenced in the claim?

Thanks again.

[mystery1]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

Yes, the court.

M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

Yes, the court.

M1

Just sent this over.

Will update on my progress.

Cheers,
Iain.

[mystery1]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ear-to-be.html

Please contact the SRA as per that blog.

M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ear-to-be.html

Please contact the SRA as per that blog.

M1

Hi M1,

I've sent an email over to the above link regarding the named solicitor.

I also received the attached through the post today, it appears that they've accepted my defense and are now wanting to progress this case via the Small Claims Court. Not entirely sure what I need to return, would I be right in saying that if Debt Enforcement & Action Limited do not respond by the stated date (15th December) then the case is void?

Cheers,
Iain.

[mystery1]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

Hi M1,

I've sent an email over to the above link regarding the named solicitor.

I also received the attached through the post today, it appears that they've accepted my defense and are now wanting to progress this case via the Small Claims Court. Not entirely sure what I need to return, would I be right in saying that if Debt Enforcement & Action Limited do not respond by the stated date (15th December) then the case is void?

Cheers,
Iain.

You also need to file the form. Pretty self explanatory really.

It won't be void as they get a final warning 1st.

M1

[IHateParkingFines]

Re: Deal - ihateparkingfines

You also need to file the form. Pretty self explanatory really.

It won't be void as they get a final warning 1st.

M1

Hi M1,

Hope you've had a good Christmas and new year!

So, I completed the questionnaire and sent everything back to the courts, which was all fine. A few weeks later I then received a "General Form of Judgement or Order" (see attached) which stated that Debt Enforcement & Action Limited was yet to respond to the questionnaire and had until the 8th January 2015 to do.

I expected that them not to respond and that would of been the end of it.. However, I've had a "Transfer of Proceedings" (see attached) come through the post today. I'm assuming that this means Debt Enforcement & Action Limited have now submitted their questionnaire and are wanting to take this to court?

As always, any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Iain.