Parking Eye v. The World.

spacey2012

The fight needs to be at the other end, planning permission and business rates avoidance.

Forensic

True Umkomas. Don't get me wrong, my observation is relatively mild. At best it can play a role in winning the argument, at worst the judge can shrug his shoulders and say "ah well, that's just an accident in the translation"; what PE cannot make the judge do is say, "yes, they say it is a fine and yes you DO have to pay it!".

I am not aiming to bring down the Empire. We all know it is tolerated by the state for all the contributions it generates. As for a motorist who submits payment first, he will never get it back, either because his antagonist hides behind a PO Box, or because the judge might just declare volenti non fit injuria.

Apart from that, for my particular finding, even if that Ledson female prints these discussions out and say on the day, "that's him, see? Same description?", it will be too late to deny the point made. That said, I don't believe I have revealed anything damaging that would screw my chances.

Thank you very much for the advice and I will heed it.

patman99

What it needs is for someone brave enough to get a PCN & a ate in court, then 'throw' the case with a poor defense before appealing & taking to a Court of record who's decision will affect all cases taken to County Court (Small Claims Division).
In Effect, Ming Rider could appeal on the grounds that he is not and never has been a member of Pepipoo (PE would not be able to prove it) so the 'evidence' used against him was not submittable as it referred to another person (unless he was daft enough to admit that it was him).

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

patman99 wrote: »

What it needs is for someone brave enough to get a PCN & a ate in court, then 'throw' the case with a poor defense before appealing & taking to a Court of record who's decision will affect all cases taken to County Court (Small Claims Division).
In Effect, Ming Rider could appeal on the grounds that he is not and never has been a member of Pepipoo (PE would not be able to prove it) so the 'evidence' used against him was not submittable as it referred to another person (unless he was daft enough to admit that it was him).

Do you actually know what your talking about?
instead of talking about this, why dont u go and get a ticket from someone who will deff take you to court ie ukcps/cps and then come back to us when you have got the court claim

Umkomaas

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Do you actually know what your talking about?
instead of talking about this, why dont u go and get a ticket from someone who will deff take you to court ie ukcps/cps and then come back to us when you have got the court claim

And for anyone lying under oath in court, well a parking ticket will be the last thing he'll need to be worrying about. And I'm sure the PPC would be doing its damnedest to prove him a liar.

Very, very risky strategy.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

And for anyone lying under oath in court, well a parking ticket will be the last thing he'll need to be worrying about. And I'm sure the PPC would be doing its damnedest to prove him a liar.

Very, very risky strategy.

Yes a complete folly and its all very well people telling others what they should do , but instead do it themselves.....

noh

patman99 wrote: »

What it needs is for someone brave enough to get a PCN & a ate in court, then 'throw' the case with a poor defense before appealing & taking to a Court of record who's decision will affect all cases taken to County Court (Small Claims Division).
In Effect, Ming Rider could appeal on the grounds that he is not and never has been a member of Pepipoo (PE would not be able to prove it) so the 'evidence' used against him was not submittable as it referred to another person (unless he was daft enough to admit that it was him).

The guy made a mistake, his user name on pepipoo is one he used elsewhere on the internet. If you google Ming Rider you will find a blog about photography where he uses his own name. Not only that he signed his first post "Kev"
It's obvious that it was him.

Umkomaas

noh wrote: »

The guy made a mistake, his user name on pepipoo is one he used elsewhere on the internet. If you google Ming Rider you will find a blog about photography where he uses his own name. Not only that he signed his first post "Kev"
It's obvious that it was him.

Precisely where and how any lie might be easily exposed - "take him down"!

Guys_Dad

I am a bit lost on this Albanian bit.

Are you saying that, in a British car park, there is a sign in Albanian or where exactly does this come from?

Sorry if I have missed the relevant bit.

zzzLazyDaisy

As someone else said, the problem with the SCC is that defendants who win cases are not trail blazing as one decision in the SCC cannot bind another judge in a different SCC. These cases have to go to the higher courts on points of law. The PPCs are not going to spend good money appealing a case they have lost as the one thing they DON'T want is the appeal court to clarify the legal position!

I remain firmly of the view that the way to 'win' at an individual level is to make use of the Practice Direction from the word go. Keep calm and polite and simply keep plugging away trying to get them to comply. As corporate bodies with legal advice, the burden is on the PPC to serve a compliant LBC - bit they CANNOT do that, because straight away the holes in their case are laid bare - their whole MO is to create confusion and fear. Yet the rule is that they must follow all stages in the PD BEFORE starting proceedings, otherwise the court can sanction them and even stay (suspend) the case and order them to get on with it.

TBH if they send vitriolic aggressive letters back - that's great! Bullies and cowards always shout loudest, and sending intimidatory letters clearly designed to scare and confuse the defendant, actually suggests that they are NOT going to push that case to court as only an idiot would antagonise a judge like that (having said that I wouldn't bet my life savings on them not being idiots). So from LBC stage, the deal is to keep the balls in the air and the dance going, build up a chain of correspondence that shows how reasonable and polite this unrepresented ordinary person is being against the big bad angry PPC, and how they are trying to do their best to comply with the court's directions in the face of the PPC's non-compliance.

I hear that the PPCs are failing to turn up at some hearings. They are also not proceeding with ones where it looks like they have a strong opponent. The judges are busy people and not stupid. These cases are all over the country, so it might take a while for the penny to drop that the courts are being cynically used as a cash-converter. When the penny does drop, they'll be looking for reasons to get these pesky cases off their desks. An application to stay the proceedings to allow time for the parties to comply with the PD may be just the excuse they are looking for.

Same goes for posters who get a SCC claim land on the mat - my view is that they should immediately send off a letter something like this (okay perhaps not so uppity) and get that ball in the air at the same time as filing their acknowledgment and defence.....

Daisy (ps - sorry I'm feeling irritable this evening - if anyone feels this post doesn't belong on this thread - just shout and I'll delete it....)

Dear Sirs

Court case name and number

I refer to the above case. As an unrepresented defendant, and with no access to legal aid, I have been carrying out my own research on how to represent myself. In the process I have come across the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.

This Court Direction states that the Claimant must serve a letter before claim in prescribed form, and then the parties must carry out certain steps before the claimant starts legal proceedings.

I am amazed that you do not seem to know about the Practice Direction - as a corporate legal department it is the sort of thing I would have expected you to know about. However, now that I have brought this matter to your attention I would be grateful if you would let me have the information that should have been in your letter before claim (I attach an extract of the Practice Direction on the contents of a letter before claim, to assist you). Also, as you are now aware of the parties' obligations under the Practice Direction, I invite you to ask the court to stay your claim to allow time for us to carry out the prescribed steps.

When replying, could you also please confirm that the claim against me is for an alleged breach of contract, or if not, please specify the basis of the claim (trespass? money owed under a contractual invoice?) as the Practice Direction says that you must give me enough information to understand the claim.

Please note if I do not hear from you within 14 days, I shall seek the assistance of the court. I am sure that will not be necessary as I should imagine you will be keen to rectify your oversight.

I look forward to hearing from you

[name]


Extract: Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct; Annex A Para 2:

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1
The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information.

The letter should include –

(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant;
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated; and
(6) details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.

2.2
The letter should also –

(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.

2.3
Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction; and

(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.