Real Court cases and what happened next!!

peter_the_piper

I know you are right but I can dream, can't I

Scouse_Magic

peter_the_piper wrote: »

BPA should oust all ppc's with ccj's against them, as should the dvla. Sobell is due to get one if he fails to pay the judgement. Maybe this is a line that should be pushed more.

We would have been well within our rights to get a Warrant of Execution... would have enjoyed every minute of that... The problem is, the ccj is in the name of the client EKH, not GW or Roxburghe even though they didn't even show up to represent EKH.

As for the BPA I never bother with them because roxburghe are on their members elect board......

If anyone gets a letter from sobell or roxburghe.. feel free to quote me, and tell them to pay their own bloomin bills instead of wasting public money and sending out useless templates :money:

Dimples2609

:mad:I too am the recipient of a Debt Recovery Plus letter. I am an employee of the supermarket that they represent , my employee has tried to cancel their Parking Notices twice (maybe 3 times lucky???)
Must admit , though I know this will get sorted out I can't get help getting upset and am considering quitting my job.
I thought you might find this web page interesting
debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/news/detail.php?
Our-client-Napier-Parking-wins-in-Court-15
Do you think Mr Darn Yau is real? (name bears a striking resemblance to another English expression .. or is it just me?).
If Mr Darn Yau isn't real, are they breaking some law / professional code of conduct?

peter_the_piper

I'll lay odds that mr DY did not find out till after the case was closed, if at all.

nigelbb

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I'll lay odds that mr DY did not find out till after the case was closed, if at all.

It's a real case. You can read the full transcript http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Yau-Judgement.pdf

In this instance it was Napier Parking suing & they are the actual landowner of the car park at Willen Lake, Milton Keynes. The eventual award was for £190 (£80 parking charge plus costs & court fees). However as Napier had postponed the original hearing they had to pay £90 costs for the defendant's loss of earnings so they won £100. It was Pyrrhic victory as they had instructed a barrister & must have been well out of pocket even though they won.

Orrin

nigelbb wrote: »

In this instance it was Napier Parking suing & they are the actual landowner of the car park at Willen Lake, Milton Keynes.

The landowner is Whitecap Leisure Limited not Napier Parking. The terms and conditions of parking have this to say:

This Car Park is owned by Whitecap Leisure Limited. Whitecap Leisure Limited has entered into a contract with us whereby all rights and obligations concerning the management and administration of the parking services at the Car Park are assigned to us. If you leave a vehicle parked in this Car Park, you enter into a contract with us and will signify acceptance of this fact. Your obligation includes, but is not limited to, the obligation to pay us charges for parking and also the charges applied under a Fixed Charge Notice if you breach these Terms and Conditions of Parking. In the event that any Fixed Charge Notice remains unpaid, you acknowledge that we shall be entitled to issue court proceedings as the claimant.

Interesting too that the judge agreed the £80 represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

bazster

Orrin wrote: »

Interesting too that the judge agreed the £80 represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Odd is it not? Still, far from the first time that a district judge has come up with a somewhat idiosyncratic analysis of a loss.

spacey2012

nigelbb wrote: »

as they had instructed a barrister & must have been well out of pocket even though they won.

They can not act as litigant on person, they can use a company solicitor if YOU agree to it, hence why they made sure they had a barrister representing to prevent a clued up defendant getting the case slung out.
I have tried to explain this but it goes straight over the tops of the heads of the "experts"

nigelbb

Reading between the lines the judge didn't believe the defendant's account of what happened. The defendants case was that he had bought a pay & display ticket as soon as practical but got delayed because of his seven year old child. The judge probably took the view that what happened was he saw the ticket on the screen then rushed back to the ticket machine & bought a ticket.

nigelbb

Orrin wrote: »

The landowner is Whitecap Leisure Limited not Napier Parking.

Napier Parking is owned by the de Savary family who until a couple of days ago were also the owners of Whitecap Leisure Limited which has just been sold to the Parks Trust which is a charity that owns and cares for many of Milton Keynes parks and green spaces. http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/Business/The-Parks-Trust-secure-future-of-Willen-Lake-with-acquisition-of-Whitecap-Leisure-20130708162459.htm