Parking eye

HardWorker2010_2

Sirdan wrote: »

Which under the Civil Procedure Rules for a Small Claim at County Court you can't do.

"
32.2

(1) The general rule is that any fact which needs to be proved by the evidence of witnesses is to be proved –
(a) at trial, by their oral evidence given in public; and

(b) at any other hearing, by their evidence in writing.

I know I'm a bit late on this one but I guess the business owners are ignorant of that fact, it would seem many don't understand what they are getting themselves into when they allow a PPC on their land. So the thought of having their staff away from the business and 'giving evidence in court' would be a worry on a number of fronts, therefore they take what they see as the easy option and fold.

Well done to the OP for going on the offensive against these crooks.:T

grahamjohn52

Yes exactly my thoughts.
If they are going to waste my time with court proceedings, i'll make them waste their time as well.
Regardless of above legal expertise, I believe under common law they would not be able to find against me without giving me the opportunity for fair hearing,i.e. calling relevant witnesses.
I know probably wasted my time with this, but goes to show if you stand up and call their bluff they have to fold.

Sirdan

grahamjohn52 wrote: »

I believe under common law they would not be able to find against me without giving me the opportunity for fair hearing,i.e. calling relevant witnesses..

Not that it matters but you believe wrong.

grahamjohn52

Sirdan, in response to your reply at 11.49 wondering what my response would be if the owners said see you in court.

The whole basis of my appeal was that I asked the staff on duty if was ok to park where I parked, and therefore immediatly brought the owners employees into my defence.
This was a deliberate ploy to put the owners under pressure. It didnt work with parking eye appeal, but worked immediatly with owner.
Had the owners gone ahead with court option I would have asked for details of staff on duty that day re search for potential witnesses etc.
Just wanted to play them at their own game.

Sirdan

grahamjohn52 wrote: »

Sirdan, in response to your reply at 11.49 wondering what my response would be if the owners said see you in court.

The whole basis of my appeal was that I asked the staff on duty if was ok to park where I parked, and therefore immediatly brought the owners employees into my defence.
This was a deliberate ploy to put the owners under pressure. It didnt work with parking eye appeal, but worked immediatly with owner.
Had the owners gone ahead with court option I would have asked for details of staff on duty that day re search for potential witnesses etc.
Just wanted to play them at their own game.

I understand all that . I just assumed when you said take the case to court that you were intending to take them to court and was wondering what cause of action you were relying on.
Now it appears you meant let them take you to court with their spurious claim then the point is redundant .

grahamjohn52

Yes sorry for confusion, should have posted with more clarity.
Take them to court, meaning contest any attempt by them to use court to fleece me.
Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Sirdan wrote: »

Quite so but I am still intrigued as to what the OPs response would be if the landowners had said "whatever see you in court then"..what is his basis for any action ?

Harassment would have been a perfectly acceptable cause of action.

Coupon-mad

grahamjohn52 wrote: »

Yes sorry for confusion, should have posted with more clarity.
Take them to court, meaning contest any attempt by them to use court to fleece me.
Many thanks.

I really liked your approach, it's especially useful to hear about this sort of success now that we are advising some people to appeal (due to the new POPLA appeals process).

I reckon the easiest way is not to actually call the first email an 'appeal', call it a complaint and copy in the landowner/retailer at that stage, threatening a Small Claim against all recipients if they allow their agents to pursue the matter with any letters or further contact whatsoever, except for a cancellation and apology.

Sirdan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Harassment would have been a perfectly acceptable cause of action.

I know that and you know that and I know that you know just as you know that I know but.....I wonder if the OP knew ??;)