However, he is still struggling to come to terms with dates. The Prankster has received a number of claim forms for parking at the Co-op with the date of parking 1 January 1900. Horseless carriages had been around for around 15 years by then and so had the Co-op, but The Prankster does not think any parking problems existed, and Civil enforcement Limited certainly didn't.
Other problems include stating the 'debt was assigned [...] with the knowledge of the Co-operative' when the Co-op have denied this, and that the claimant is claiming damages for trespass when they have no rights over the land.
The claim is also for a debt which has only been partially assigned to DEAL and for which DEAL do not seem to have ever come up with proof of assignment.
The claim also states the claim is for a contractual charge. The Prankster does not have copies of every co-op parking sign, and the fact that the true data of parking is not known does not help, but on the balance of probabilities this is not true either. Civil Enforcement Limited only moved over to a contractual model comparatively recently.
The claim also asks for £50 solicitor costs. While this would be allowable if Mr Schwartz bills DEAL £50 for his time, the template nature and schoolboy errors suggest he is just given a stack of these to whip through and sign, and presumably charges accordingly. The Prankster suggests £5-£10 is the going rate for this kind of service.
What to do if you had one of these?
If you have one of these forms, The Prankster therefore advises sending a copy to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to help with their ongoing enquiry into Mr Schwartz. Here is a suggested email. Alter it to suit your circustances
fraud@sra.org.uk
For the attention of Heather Gelder, Head of Intelligence
Dear Ms Gelder,
I enclose a claim form signed by Mr M Schwartz. I understand you are currently investigating him for various matters. I wish to draw the following to your attention, any or all of which may be breaches of the solicitors code of conduct.
1) The date of parking is stated as 1-1-1900 which is an impossibility and suggests he has not actually read the claim diligently or prepared it himself. I understand he has form for this type of behaviour, spelling his own name incorrectly many times.
2) He claims that the debt was assigned to the claimant with the full knowledge of the co-operative. However, the co-operative have denied this, and this therefore appears to be a fraudulent claim.
3) The claim is for an alleged debt which has only had 87.5% assigned to the claimant. This therefore appears to fraudulent, or at best misleading
4) The claim is stated to be for a contractual charge. However, it is believed the signage at the time of the incident (which cannot be verified as the date is not given) in fact asks for damages for breach of contract and not a contractual charge. He is therefore either guilty of not correctly researching the claim or of improperly stating the claim.
5) The claim also asks for damages for trespass. As the landowner is the co-op, this is an impossibility, and Mr Schwartz must know this.
6) The form claims £50 for Mr Schwartz's costs. It is unlikely he actually charged this amount to the claimant, given the template nature of the form and schoolboy errors which no competent solicitor would make. If so this would be fraudulent on his part to sign the claim form stating he did charge £50.
7) The claim form was filed with no prior letter before claim. The last communication with this company was several months ago. This is a breach of the pre-court protocol.
You must of course also defend the claim. The pepipoo website is a good place to go for help, and Gan has written a defence to see off this spurious claim. Don't forget also that the co-op has two test cases in the pipeline against CEL and DEAL for ticketing their own employees and refusing to cancel the tickets.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Hoping the comment goes through this time.
ReplyDeleteIt's the County Courts Act 1984, not Country. Bit sad that a lawyer doesn't know the name of the statute he's using.
And why no name of firm filled in. If he's a direct employee of CEL/DEAL then they can't charge an extra £50. If he isn't, then he needs to fill in the firm for which he works, surely.
How long can this go on for? Have DEAL ever turned up at court?
ReplyDeleteWith typos like this now long would a judge actually entertain the case?
Such a waste of tax payers money (as they hardly ever pay the court fees)
DEAL are also supplying a 2 hour limit sign for claims where the vehicle was parked for less than 2 hours, including a claim form which says so. 3 that i know of.
ReplyDelete...and surely a solicitor would know whether there was either a breach of contract or trespass, surely it cannot be an either/or claim, especially as the amounts claimed for trespass are unlikely to be the same as can be claimed for breach of contract? That would suggest that the solicitor has not investigated this particular case and applied due diligence. A solicitor familiar with many thousands of parking offences should surely be on top of the detail of these claims by now.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness there's nothing that precludes a claimant from filing multiple claims in this manner (good luck winning a trespass claim without being the landowner though!)
DeleteAnd surely as this is small claims, his costs wouldn't be recoverable anyway?
ReplyDeleteYou can claim solicitors filing costs of up to £50. But they must be incurred. If the solicitor bills you £5 you can't pad it by £45.
DeleteFair enough then :) Be good to see what exactly he's done for the £50 though other than sign it! otherwise he'd be onto a good money maker...
Deleteagreed Prankster , however in the case of Ms Leesden at PE , it would be physically impossible to read and understand then sign the amount of claims that she does in a day , as ms leesden is on salary , she CANNOT be charging PE £50 per ticket
ReplyDeleteAgreed.She cannot be costing £50 per ticket, even if you include her paralegal and office costs
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs has been mentioned a number of times, an employee solicitor who files claims on behalf of his employer can claim the solicitor filing fee on the claim form for his employer. Rachel Ledson of course doesn't receive the £50, this goes to ParkingEye. But this is allowed under the CPR.
DeleteHowever, while they can claim legal costs incurred in using employed legal staff, they have to be costs that are actually incurred and cannot include general admin costs, so I would dispute that what Parking Eye is doing is allowed.
DeleteI wrote this in some pre action correspondemce only 3 days ago
ReplyDelete" I note from https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/223107/response/551112/attach/html/3/92481.doc.html that for the first 6 months of 2014 parking lodged 15466 claims and at £50 each that would be £773300 in solicitor costs. I do not see this in your accounts and would be gobsmacked if the only solicitor signing claims at that time, Ms Ledson was indeed earning approximately £1.5 million per annum."
do we have a £773300 fraud on our hands?
ReplyDeletethis situation should be sorted out
has Ms leesden got a spare toothbrush we ask , rumour has it she signed (and checked over) 842 claims whilst se was sat in the viewing area at the COA last week , ,, she MUST have done , as customers received dated claims a few days later ,
See my comment on your above post. Please can we move on from this non-topic? ;)
DeleteEven HHJ Maloney ruled otherwise. Your interpretation is incorrect.
DeleteMoloney is wrong in many points. It's not surprising that he also doesn't have an in depth knowledge of the finer points of the CPR... most judges at county court level don't. This doesn't mean he's right though.
DeleteSpelling her name correctly might be a good start! Almost as bad as Shwarts, Schwarts, Swarts, Schwartz!!
ReplyDeleteLedson!
The CEL signage at my local Co-Op (before it became a Waitrose) contained the words "to deter abuse of this car park", so definitely not a contractual charge. Sadly I no longer have photos.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete