She charges £50 a time for doing this. We know this, because it says so on the claim forms.
In the small claims court, costs are limited. You are only allowed to claim capped costs for a solicitor's help in preparing the claim. It says so here.
(1) This Section sets out the amounts which, unless the court orders otherwise, are to be allowed in respect of legal representatives’ charges.
...
Where –So there you have it. Rachel is allowed to charge ParkingEye up to £50 for her services and surprise, surprise, she charges the maximum.
- the value of the claim exceeds £25 but does not exceed £500: £50
Now, leaving aside the thorny problem that she is actually an employee of ParkingEye, and therefore possibly not allowed to include this charge at all on the claim form, we can look at this figure in more detail.
Firstly, we know ParkingEye really must pay Rachel this amount. If they didn't, then because she is claiming they do on the claim form, that could cause all kinds of bother.
The next question is, how many claims is Rachel filing per week? Well, we don't have full information for that. However, the ParkingEye web site states:
Unfortunately ParkingEye have to issue hundreds, sometimes thousands of County Court Claims each monthWe also know that in the 5 days between May 24 and May 28, ParkingEye issued 663 claims. We will assume Rachel issued all of them.
That must have been a good week for Rachel. She earned £50 * 663 = £33,150
If she keeps that up all year, she will be well into 7 figures. Let's assume she has 4 weeks holiday.
£33,150 * 48 = £1,591,200
Wow! At that rate, Rachel earns well over a million pounds a year!
She deserves it though. At 663 cases a week, she has to process 132 cases a day. For an 8 hour working day that’s 16.5 cases an hour, or better than one case every 4 minutes.
Actually, Rachel might earn even more than this. Pretty much every ParkingEye claim form reads exactly the same, almost as if they were computer generated. If they were, then perhaps Rachel could get through them even quicker. If all she had to do was quickly check each form and then sign it, she might be able to whip through them all like lightening. Perhaps she could get through all 663 in a day. Certainly, the bulk claims all seem to be sent out the same day each week. Perhaps Rachel takes the rest of the week off in order to get some serious shopping in; if not, and she works every day of the week at that rate, that takes her earnings up to over 7 million a year.
Wow! At that rate, Rachel earns well over a million pounds a year!
She deserves it though. At 663 cases a week, she has to process 132 cases a day. For an 8 hour working day that’s 16.5 cases an hour, or better than one case every 4 minutes.
Actually, Rachel might earn even more than this. Pretty much every ParkingEye claim form reads exactly the same, almost as if they were computer generated. If they were, then perhaps Rachel could get through them even quicker. If all she had to do was quickly check each form and then sign it, she might be able to whip through them all like lightening. Perhaps she could get through all 663 in a day. Certainly, the bulk claims all seem to be sent out the same day each week. Perhaps Rachel takes the rest of the week off in order to get some serious shopping in; if not, and she works every day of the week at that rate, that takes her earnings up to over 7 million a year.
That could cause ParkingEye a problem. Last years accounts show they only made £4.4 million profit. If Rachel carries on working as hard as she could, that would turn into a £3 million loss. Perhaps they will ask her to take a sabattical before she eats into too much of their profit.
Actually, Rachel might earn even more than this. (Is there an echo in this blog?). £50 is the maximum you can claim for filing a claim of this amount. Perhaps she actually charges ParkingEye £100 to file each claim. That would take her to 14 million a year. Now we are talking serious money! Perhaps not though.
Certainly she cannot charge less. The cynical amongst you may say ParkingEye are trying to play the system, get some free money and sting the motorist for unjustified costs. The Parking Prankster says, shame on you, cynical reader! For one thing, it is unlikely that a real solicitor would deliberately lie like this. If they were caught out, there could be serious consequences; they could get struck off, lose their licence to solicit (or whatever the terminology is) or worse. Deliberate fraud for instance, could result in a jail sentence. So there is no doubt in The Prankster’s mind that Rachel really does charge ParkingEye £50 (or more) to file each claim.
The Prankster realises not all his readers are happy-go-lucky jolly japesters like he is. Some of you may be more worldly weary, jaded and cynical.
If this describes you, and you received or paid a court claim from ParkingEye, Ms Ledson will be more than happy to confirm she really does charge £50 a pop filing fee. Write to her at this address.
Actually, Rachel might earn even more than this. (Is there an echo in this blog?). £50 is the maximum you can claim for filing a claim of this amount. Perhaps she actually charges ParkingEye £100 to file each claim. That would take her to 14 million a year. Now we are talking serious money! Perhaps not though.
Certainly she cannot charge less. The cynical amongst you may say ParkingEye are trying to play the system, get some free money and sting the motorist for unjustified costs. The Parking Prankster says, shame on you, cynical reader! For one thing, it is unlikely that a real solicitor would deliberately lie like this. If they were caught out, there could be serious consequences; they could get struck off, lose their licence to solicit (or whatever the terminology is) or worse. Deliberate fraud for instance, could result in a jail sentence. So there is no doubt in The Prankster’s mind that Rachel really does charge ParkingEye £50 (or more) to file each claim.
The Prankster realises not all his readers are happy-go-lucky jolly japesters like he is. Some of you may be more worldly weary, jaded and cynical.
If this describes you, and you received or paid a court claim from ParkingEye, Ms Ledson will be more than happy to confirm she really does charge £50 a pop filing fee. Write to her at this address.
ParkingEye Limited
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT
Dear Ms Ledson,
I received a claim form from ParkingEye which you signed in the capacity as claimant’s solicitor. I see that ParkingEye are claiming £50 solicitor’s costs. Please confirm this is the amount you are charging ParkingEye for filing this case. If this is not the case, please explain how this amount is arrived at.And if you already caved in and paid ParkingEye without going to court.
Dear Ms Ledson,
I received a claim form from ParkingEye which you signed in the capacity as claimant’s solicitor. I see that ParkingEye are claiming £50 solicitor’s costs. Please confirm this is the amount you are charging ParkingEye for filing this case. If this is not the case, please explain how this amount is arrived at. If after consideration you feel that £50 is not the correct amount to charge, please reimburse me for any overpayment.
Well of course that all supposes The Prankster's suppositions and maths are correct. If anyone spots any errors, please get in touch.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Hmm, I wonder what her declared Income is to HMRC, I'm sure she would never do anything in any way wrong regarding income declarations to HMRC, but maybe a letter to them explaining the situation and an invitation that they might like to investigate any discrepancy, after all it's possibly the tax on up to 1.5 million pounds is being missed out on if it's not being declared due to an oversight. there is evidence of her charging these amounts in court documents, maybe a nice audit will give her something to think about other than helping the fleecing of motorists who often have done no more than overstay by a few minutes in a free car park
ReplyDeleteOh and at 50 quid a throw, do you get a 'happy ending'
ReplyDeleteAll of the claim forms I've seen which detail the charges state that the amount includes salaries of employees. Perhaps Rachel isn't an employee?
ReplyDeleteIf she is then they're doing a duplication of charges.