Tweet
I have just received one of these as well; looks identical. Any more developments/advice? I was sent something else a month or so back, which I ignored. Will see if I can find it. Looked like a scam asking for money, with a photo signature. Mentioned the Co-op so I am surmising this relates to an over-stay in one of their car parks. This would have to be at least 6 months ago.
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
Re: Debt Enforcement & Action - Final reminder before court action
I'm not sure what to do. Does anyone have an idea how many notifications these chancers send out, re the parking offence. I don't recall receiving a single one and I haven't signed for anything. I think the only thing I've had of them was a request for money and a list of things they can do if I don't pay, e.g. seize my property, which even to a layperson looked like a scam. Then I received the Salford Claim form. I'll have a read through the defence templates. I can understand good honest people just paying up to be rid of the thought of a court appearance. Over 200 quid for an overstay at a Coop car park. What it the world coming to? -
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Without any further info that could add to a court defence i'd suggest something like :-
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
M1Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Many thanks mystery1. Will post acknowledgement of service to Salford ASAP and follow up with the defence. I won't be pulling out.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ear-to-be.html
Please contact the SRA as per that blog.
M1Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Will do. I'm off work next week and will get going on this. Will also be writing to the Co-op. Thanks again M1.Originally posted by mystery1 View PostComment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Finally got going on this. I have sent my Acknowledgement of Service via email. Only took a few minutes and immediately got an auto-reply confirmation of receipt. Phoned the SRA and they asked me to email them the Claim Form, which I have done. Also got an auto-reply to this. So far, so good. I have found the Final Reminder Before Court Action Deal sent me, dated 15th September. According to this:
"If a Judgement is obtained the options available to us are as follows:-
A Warrant of Execution
Appoint Court Bailiff to attend your property
Seize your vehicle/goods
Apply for an Attachment of Earnings Order
Apply for Third Party Debt Order"
I'll be sending a copy of this with a letter to the Co-op.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Received an email letter from the SRA Assessment Team this morning entitled Re: Mr Shwarts in response to sending them a copy of the Claim Form. Basically says that they are aware of this issue and are dealing with it. Goes on to say they are unable toprovide legal advice or get involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and that I maywish to think about what action is needed to protect my position, such as obtaining independent legal advice.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
No need or point paying for advice as it'll cost as much or more than they're asking. As long as you defend that's fine. We are not reliant on the solicitor angle but are working it in case it bears fruit.
M1Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Defence sent yesterday via email and got auto-confirmation of receipt.Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
mashappy:
Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
HI all. Hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year. I received Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Form N149A) from Salford on Christmas Eve. Have to complete the questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office and serve copies on all other parties by 9th Jan. Only thing that's throwing me a bit is that at the end of Form N180 it states "Once you have completed this form please return it to the court at the address shown on the form N149A, notice of proposed allocations to Small Claims Track". Says nothing about all other parties.
M1, I can send my completed questionnaire to Salford by email. Should I also send a copy to Deal via Recorded post? Thanks.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part26#26.3
(ii) require the parties to file a completed directions questionnaire and serve copies on all other parties;
Standard post is fine, get a free proof of posting.
M1Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Thanks M1. Sent on Monday. Be interesting to see how the mediation goes.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Received two letters from the Salford Money Claims Centre. The first indicates that Deal have failed to file form N149. The second indicates that I have failed to do the same. Hmm. Mine went 6th January via email and I have confirmation from Salford that they received it. Guess they haven't read it. I also sent a copy to Deal and have proof of postage. Reckon on calling Salford tomorrow for clarification.
Edit. Just read letter properly (which is a "General Form of Judgement or Order") and I have the option to object to the order within 7 days, and apply to have it set aside, varied, or revoked.Last edited by chickenmadras; 21st January 2015, 17:14:PM.Comment
-
Re: Deal - Chickenmadras
Email it again just to comply with the order. Phoning the court is also what i'd do. :okay:
M1Comment
Comment