Private Parking Appeals Ltd

I may be wrong but wasn’t one of the directors hit with massive costs due to unreasonable behaviour in court?

Yes but you seem to be blurring the blog, clearly where it was stated that Barry Beavis had been previously found to be acting unreasonably in a case.

pappa_golf wrote: »

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-indigo-matters-continue-who-is.html

To quote a different section:

"Additionally Mr Wilkie has now done a few parking cases - over 36 in total, and no-one has ever suggested that his conduct has been anything other than exemplary, indeed he has been allowed leave on more than one occasion to represent at appeal level and is regularly complimented about
the standard of his submissions and behaviour as a lay person. One District Judge remarked that he conducted himself “no less than I would have expected from Senior counsel”. Additionally, Counsel for Indigo made no objection to John Wilkie continuing to represent after judgment, nor, at the appeal did he object to Mr Wilkie making submissions; he indicated that even if the matter went to multi-track, he would not object to the Defendants being assisted by Mr Wilkie.
"

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/wright-hassall-blow-7000-of-indigos.html


And Parking Pranksters own words

"The attempted smearing of John Wilkie appears to be a calculated and premeditated attempt to 'justify' the Wright Hassall legal fees of around £50k. Wright Hassall started the maneuvering by trying to move the claim from the small claims court, where there are no legal fees, to the multi-track, where there are. This appears to be the next strategy -attacking the lay representative of the defence to attempt to get fees granted under 27.14(2)g 'unreasonableness' rule.

The Prankster does not have a transcript of the judgment so does not know how much of the costs awarded are due to the alleged behaviour of John Wilkie, and how much are due to other matters.

So far no independent evidence has emerged to support the claims of this apparent non-person, who does not appear to work at the contact address given on her witness statement.

It is interesting that while counsel for Indigo was allowed to introduce unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Wilkie, Mr Wilkie himself was allowed no right of reply, and was given the choice of either shutting up, or leaving the courtroom. Mr Wilkie chose to leave.

This is not the only controversial event in a large parking case. Who can forget the hearing of ParkingEye v Beavis, when their counsel was not available. A mysterious hoax phone call caused the first hearing to be cancelled, and in the next hearing their counsel was free to attend.
"


Having read the transcript of the costs part of the hearing, I was absolutely appalled by apparent lack of ability of Mr Beavis who appeared to be working for the Claimant, agreeing with unreasonable conduct in defending the claim on apparently points which had been pre-agreed to explore for the 3 - day trial.

He practically handed the costs against the Defendants, failing to correct the judge on a number of points or raise issue as to why the Claimant did not raise relevant points at the time during the trial or why the judge was permitting these without any redress from Mr Wilkie or any formal Witness Statement of those involved.

Additionally,No attempt was made by him to argue for example against unreasonable conduct citing relevant case law


AFTER ALL the defence points used appear to run day in and day out with success in other small claims and are surely legitimate tactics open to Defendants to defend any claim.

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

(eg advising all Scottish people to ignore PCN’s including Carly Mackie, and not telling new posters who weren’t driving to name the driver to remove all liability,.

You really must stop misleading people with your posts ?

Carly never came here, if she did, doubt she would have
declared bankruptcy .

That's what happens folks if you name the driver in Scotland,
you will end up like Carly ..... in the sheriffs court

For the rest of the UK, as Martin Lewis says ..... you do not
need a claims type company when it's easy to do it yourself
and it's 100% free on this forum

For anyone who has paid money to any company and NOT
received the service, report them to Trading Standards