PCN (NW) LTD taking me to court

zzzLazyDaisy

My view as a lawyer (for what it is worth) is that ANY first level 'court' (including small claims court, employment tribunal, benefits tribunal etc) is a lottery - especially for an unrepresented litigant.

Why? Many reasons but here are the main ones:

1 Statistically an unrepresented person has a much lower prospect of success from the off. I have seen this phenomena many times in tribunal, when acting for both employer and employee against an unrepresented other side. It is what it is, and research bears this out.

2 Following on from 1, the unrepresented defendant often goes off in a frolic down a blind alley, banging on about the facts of the case, the 'unfairness' of what happened and the 'mitigating circumstances' without having any grasp of the law, or how to apply it to their own circumstances. So important issues that would have won the case are never aired. The Judge is NOT expected to know every twist and turn of the law relating to every case that comes before him/her. It is up to the parties to raise issues of fact and law that are relevant. So, for example, there may be a PoFA point that would kill the case stone dead (eg RK who was not the driver, with a windscreen ticket followed by a PCN 4 months later). The Judge may not be aware of PoFA, the PPC will NOT raise that point (why would they?) and the unrepresented defendant may not be aware of it.... OR may try to raise it on the day but be bamboozled by a PPC lawyer who is trained to win legal arguments and a judge who is looking for reasons to rule against the defendant because s/he has already decided that anarchy would rule if people were allowed to get away with not bothering to pay for their parking tickets just because they feel like it

3 following on from that - while a SCC judgement IS appeallable on issues of law, who is going to spend thousands of pounds appealling a judgement of £175 (or whatever)? Not many people - and the SCC judge knows that. The SCC judgment does not create precedent and two cases in the same court on the same day on the same facts can result in opposing judgments, and both are equally valid and lawful (unless appealed to a higher court and overturned).

If the above comments suggest that the SCC judges don't apply the law, or are unethical, then I wish to correct that assumption immediately. But the simple fact is that 9 times out of 10, a case is only as good as the person who is presenting it, and an unrepresented person is often immediately at a huge disadvantage.

Added to that, court proceedings can be time consuming and stressful for many people (yes I know some people enjoy the challenge, but many more don't).

Personally I would always advise people to use every avenue to get the PPC monkey off their back without going to court if possible.... appeal to POPLA (yes it is in the back pockets of the PPC industry, but while we can still beat them at their own game it is fairly painless and free to the appellant) .... COMPLAIN to the Principal landowner/retail park/ retailer / hospital whatever and get the charge cancelled.... ENGAGE with letters before claim using the Practice Direction (so far I have not heard of a single case where the LBC has been challenged actually proceeding to court).... Actively report breaches of PoFA / BPA CoP to BPA and DVLA (they have been known to step in and get charges cancelled).

Finally, if you have the misfortune of coming up against a solicitor or legal department that appears to be deliberately flouting the law, or failing to respond to letters, or knowingly pursuing cases that breach PoFA especially those where the BPA has stepped in to cancel the charge after court proceedings have started - Make a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, including a full copied set of your file of correspondence/papers and ask the SRA to investigate the solicitor/legal dept. One complaint on its own probably won't make much impact (there are always crazies out there making random complaints!) but repeated complaints by unconnected members of the public will eventually result in an investigation.

Sorry for the essay

Daisy

Scouse_Magic

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Scouse you are being far to presumptive here.
Dont automatically assume that this claim is a third party one. You don't know this for sure. You could be write but it's better the OP gets it killed of before any hearing.

Your two wins against sobbell do no mean that your advice is always correct.

Of course its a third party claim, the matter was passed to GPB by Roxburghe who are also claiming addittional costs to the Parking Company

Umkomaas

But the court papers I've seen show GPB acting on behalf of PCN (NW) - albeit at the same postal address as GPB.

Roxburghe aren't mentioned as a claimant.

Scouse_Magic

And yes I beat sobell, all be it prior to POFA and yes his preparation wa awful... that is not my point...

On the Court Papers, he claimed to act on behalf of an NHS Trust, Just as in the same way GPB say they act on behalf of PCN NW

The reality was, that the NHS Trust new nothing about any court case and I have had this out with them.

If Sobell had won, the NHS would have been paid nothing, roxburghe would have kept the lot.

As it was myself who won, the (Claimant NHS) did not pay me, it was Roxburghe so work that one out and tell me that its not a third party claim

And I bet on one of the OP's letters from GPB it states "Our client Roxburghe"

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Scouse_Magic wrote: »

Of course its a third party claim, the matter was passed to GPB by Roxburghe who are also claiming addittional costs to the Parking Company

No ,roxburghe are NOT the claimaint.

This is not a third party claim

Scouse_Magic

Have a look a post number 3 "Our Client Roxburghe" thats what the letter states

Scouse_Magic

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

No ,roxburghe are NOT the claimaint.

This is not a third party claim

Oh no you again !!! you have no idea what you are talking about....

letters from Graham White & GPB "Our client roxburghe UK" where does that letter state "Our client PCN NW"

It may say so on the claim form but that is the disguise hence 3rd party

its all orchestrated by roxburghe

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Maybe time to drop the conspiracy theories?

Umkomaas

Scouse_Magic wrote: »

Oh no you again !!! you have no idea what you are talking about....

letters from Graham White & GPB "Our client roxburghe UK" where does that letter state "Our client PCN NW"

It may say so on the claim form but that is the disguise hence 3rd party

its all orchestrated by roxburghe

Wait for the court papers.

And whilst the NHS may not have known anything of your case (their main business concern is healthcare, not parking charges), do you think a PPC would act with a similar level of integrity if questioned, and, given the volume of PCN (NW)/Rox/GPB cases that are currently underway that PCN (NW) are somehow blissfully unaware of this?

Scouse_Magic

I would also ask you to study very carefully my post number 35 and ask yourself why did GPB suddenly appear at Roxburghes address

It was just a week after Mr Dargonne had been summoned involving myself, to explain these court cases the client knew nothing about

Now how many people have not only had sobell in the flesh but mr dargonne too !!!