Guys,
I know some of you have been treated harshly at Ransomes so you may enjoy this from Pepipoo.
Good Afternoon Motorists,
Ransomes Park Limited v N Anderson — Norwich County Court 24th October 2014
Ransomes Park Limited kind of won a bit of their appeal but otherwise suffered a heavy loss. The grounds upon which the Judge made his decision are as follows
- Proserve’s signage (which it uses at any number of sites in East Anglia) is gibberish and it’s T’s and C’s can’t be relied upon to create a valid contract. It would seem that if Proserve is to continue with its operation it will have to change all of its signage. I wonder if there is scope here for Ransomes to sue Mr Duff for breach of contract. He may regret contracting in the name of his firm rather than his limited company. That’s a claim in the region of £150,000ish, I suppose, for the 700 stayed actions.
- Ransomes are not entitled to recover their costs. For using Senior Counsel at the appeal and Junior Counsel at the lower court, two firms of Solicitors at which senior partners were used, I don’t know, shall we say around £5000 down the River Wensum? Wonder if any Solicitors firms may be in for a writ or two for any advice given on the enforcement model that has been operating?
- Trespass was found (Still awaiting the details of the grounds for doing so) but the damages claimed was reduced to £60. Ransomes claimed £150 (Proserve’s fee) plus another £235.50 for Proserve’s extra costs. The costs of obtaining the transcript and the appeal application fee was to be shared between the parties. So, for those commercial organisations I assume that the claim will have to be reduced from £300 to £60.
The important principle here is that Ransomes cannot claim the fees they pay to Proserve. No wonder Ransomes accounts reveal a big reduction in cash since Proserve took over this particular kind of enforcement. Not saying that the two are linked but the accounts suggest a bit of a hole.
If anyone who has paid Ransomes wants some of their money back contact nigel.robson@thelandgroup.co.uk If you have paid VAT on the damages as well just ask Mr Robson how he squares that with his Counsel saying to the Court that Mr Robson does not dissent from the Judge’s view that “If a Defendant has paid VAT then he would have paid more than he was legally obliged to”. Methinks that Mr Robson has dug himself into quite a hole over VAT.
It may be of assistance to those of you faced with claims from Ransomes Park limited, for parking at the Ipswich Europark, or any other site where Proserve undertakes enforcement, to copy, steal or otherwise plagiarize the documents that the defence in this case has used. If nothing they will give you an idea of the format in which such documents should be presented. No guarantees that they will be 100% appropriate to your particular circumstances, or that they will bring success. Develop them to suit your particular case. The documents can be found at dropbox.com/sh/u64g9wws923z … VMSRa?dl=0
You may need to sign up to DropBox if you are not already a subscriber. Signing up is free and easy. Then you just download the documents to your own documents folder. The documents are as follows:-
At the Lower Court
-
Ransomes Particulars of Claim.
If the particulars of claim you have from Ransomes say anything different to what they have said in this document then remember that this document contains a statement of truth. So, if Ransomes wish to change the facts in the particulars they have sent you this may need to be referred to in your defence. Don’t forget to check and see whether Mr Duff signed the Court Claim Form. He does not appear to be authorised to do so, but has done. He may also have put his own name and firm’s name and address in the box for applicant/Solicitor and he is neither. Some may argue that such conduct may be a criminal issue and a breach of the CPRs. -
Defence
Ransomes approach to litigation is to not tell the motorist all they need to know in order to form a view as to whether Ransomes are actually entitled to demand money from them. For example, Proserve keep demanding the charges and then, all of a sudden, this company called Ransomes Park Limited appears on the scene saying that it is entitled to the money and not Proserve. Yet the Europark is promoted as being run by the Land Group. Confused? I suspect that the objective here is to keep motorists in the dark to make it difficult to lodge a decent defence.
They do not tell you that they own part of the Europark but not all of it. Do they own the land you may have parked on? Are they the proper party to bring proceedings against you? So the defence in this action had to cover just about everything — just in case. Once Ransomes disclosed the documents they were to rely on in the claim, 14 days before a hearing, matters became much clearer. Much of what was included in this defence then fell by the wayside. It is easier, in proceedings, to knock defences out which become irrelevant, than it is to put them in later if they are relevant and had been omitted! Just bear that in mind. -
Supplementary defence
This was an after-thought but could be wrapped up in the defence document. -
Special Directions Application
Because of Ransomes secrecy about its cause of action and status to bring proceedings it was felt necessary to tease out of them relevant information. This application was done via a letter to the court and which the court accepted. Normally you would make a formal application and that could cost you some £80ish or whatever the current rate is. No point in spending money if you can avoid it! This approach revealed that Ransomes manage parking because they have contracted with other parties to do so and that those others have agreed to pay them all of their costs, including what they pay Proserve. You may think that it’s a bit naughty to claim a loss when someone else is covering your costs. -
List of Documents
You will need to identify all of the documents that you will rely on at the hearing and make them available to the other side 14 days before the hearing. Again, because of Ransomes failure to disclose their hand, everything that may be useful was thrown in. Most of the documents on the list were not required.
I would ask the other side if they will accept service by email or Dropbox to save you money. Mr Duff refused to accept service in such a fashion. Once Solicitors had been appointed they dealt with the case much more professionally and agreed to email service. This document shows you how to set out the list. You should be able to find most of the documents on the net other than the personal letters/emails.
-
Skeleton Argument from Ransomes for the first hearing
Take note of what is said in this document as it is their case to the court. Note they claim that it is in order to add VAT to the Damages but by the Appeal they change their minds!! If any case they put forward against you differs from what has been said in this document then it may be that Ransomes is running different arguments to the court and seeking to mislead it. They certainly ran some contradictory arguments between the Hamblion Case and this latest action! Just check to see if there is any conflict. If there is then advise the court. Any evidence of impropriety on their part may assist an application to the Court for costs. -
Defendant’s skeleton
Actually it was a bit more than a skeleton. It’s easier for a litigant in person if they get their arguments down in writing so they don’t miss anything at a hearing. File this in court 14 days before the hearing as that enables the Judge to read it before the hearing. -
Statement read to lower court by Defendant
Again, it’s just easier if you have your submission set out. Saves having to think on your feet! -
Transcript of Lower Court’s decision
At the Appeal
- Grounds for Appeal
They should not be adding to these grounds in their skeleton arguments
11 and 12. Directions for the Appeal
Standard stuff
-
Ransomes Skeleton for the Appeal.
Note in this document that, after some 2 years, they finally agree that it is wrong to add VAT to their claim for damages. In fact they even suggest that it is “unlawful”. This may assist any criminal investigation into Ransomes conduct. After all falsely representing that VAT can be added damages with the intention of getting money from someone may fall into s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Note also that they state that Mr Duff spends one hour chasing a motorist and that his time is charged at £150 per hour. When they come to sue commercial enterprises for £300 for their lorries parking on the road (to ask for directions!) they will be arguing that it takes either more than one hour or that Mr Duff’s rate is a reasonable £300 per hour. Methinks that they have shot themselves in the foot with this submission to the court. So if they are billing you for £300 tell the court about this evidence that it only costs £150 to Mr Duff!!! For claims of £300 they are certainly going to have to change their story. These “statements of truth” can get in the way of a good story don’t you think? -
Defendants reply to their skeleton
No Respondents Notice was filed in this action. If there is any part of a Judge’s decision from the lower court that is disagreed with then that could be set out in a Respondent’s Notice and challenged at the appeal. Without a transcript of the judgment the defendant did not know what the Judge’s reasons were for his decision so could not challenge that decision. Let’s face it all you want to hear is “case dismissed”! Always make a note of what a judge says in case you want to challenge him. The Defendant in this action had considerable problems getting the court’s assistance in applying for a transcript of the hearing.
In the appeal you can only really challenge their skeleton rather than run new arguments. So you need to agree or disagree with every paragraph of their skeleton argument. Anything you don’t disagree with can be taken as an acceptance. -
Supplementary skeleton
With the courts permission you can add to the skeleton so if you forget something it may be worth filing a supplementary skeleton no less than 7 days before the hearing and then ask the Judge at the appeal if he will allow it -
Claim for Costs.
The possibility of being awarded costs, as a litigant in person, is pretty remote. However, if you don’t ask you certainly will not get any costs. If you can show that the other side has acted unreasonably you may get costs so it’s worth keeping a separate folder in your documents for filing away any evidence of impropriety. -
Halsburys Trespass to land.
Ransomes claim that motorists trespass (or commit a breach of contract). This case (Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 All ER 407) shows that if you trespass that does not mean that that trespass is actionable. The landowner has to ask you to leave and if you don’t leave in a reasonable period of time, then the trespass becomes actionable. Proserve do not ask you to leave even though they stand in front of your car and take a photo!
18 and 19. Witness statements of Robson and Duff
Check these statements given under a statement of truth. If they say anything different in any claim against you then raise the fact that they said something different to the court in this action. Please note that Mr Robson admits that their costs are recovered as service charges from the occupiers trading at the Europark. Ransomes don’t lose any money it would seem.
20 DVLA V888
In this DVLA form Mr Duff confirms that he will only use data to pursue claims in trespass. On that basis he gets registered keeper data. Yet when it comes to court there is also a claim for a breach of contract. It is a criminal offence to make a false declaration. Take it up with the DVLA.
Valiant