We won in court

TW2734

Dear Forum


We have read and used some of the advice on this forum and by way of saying thank you wish to give you the facts behind our court appearance this week and victory when the judge dismissed the Vinci case against us.


The parking was on private land, in 2012. yes it has taken that long.


We did not know about the offence until, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, we received notification of non payment of the tickets and then very quickly proceedings by Roxburgh debt company, around 6/7 weeks after the parking offence.


Our defence from the outset was that the registered keeper could not breach the contract as we could not read the signs displayed in the car park as we were not the driver AND could prove it.


We wrote to both Vinci/Roxburgh and Graham White solicitors explaining this and requested that they stopped hounding us. The phone calls were continuous and whilst professionally executed were threatening. Their main focus was to scare us paying or into saying who we thought the driver was and used both verbal and written scare tactics.
They issued court proceedings in Northampton County Court Bulk centre in Sept 2012.
When a last attempt by Graham White to scare us again failed all went quiet and the case stalled and was "stayed". BUT it was not dead.
Around 9 months later they resurrected the whole thing.
After using Graham White initially this was then changed to GPB another solicitor, who was closed down by the solicitors general, and finally it ended with a new firm called Gladstones from Knutsford.
This time they pursued it all the way and we went to court last week with a representative from Vinci attending. The day before the hearing an inch thick document of their case arrived and the focus of their case had changed a little.


In court they accepted our defence, when asked directly, that we were not the driver (we had provided written evidence from work colleagues that we were miles from the offences at the same time) and so the breach of contract case effectively folded and it switched whether there was a legal requirement to say whom we thought may have been driving.


They quoted Barnard v Sully 1931 and/or Rambarran v Gurrucharran 1970 saying as the registered keeper we had an obligation to name or pay. The judge ruled that this was not relevant and when they offered no further precedent, dismissed the case.


Their last attack (in their court documents) was that we had acted unreasonably by not revealing details of our defence or the name of the driver and quoted Northfield v DSM (Southern) ltd 12 May 2000. This was never discussed in court at all so can only speculate on whether it is relevant. But it seemed to rely on the fact we had refused to tell them our defence until the last minute. We actually had written to them prior to them issuing proceedings and am not sure why they did not know this. Either way they did not discuss this.


I do not wish to appear to gloat as this was a long, worrying and at times frightening process. We effectively were bullied by the legal profession, in writing, who used legal jargon and case law to prove how wrong we were.


One example of their solicitors tactics was they wrote and said that we had been ordered to reveal the name of the driver by the court. In fact the court papers said "an adverse inference may be drawn by the court in the event she fails to disclose the name of the driver".


My wife and I are not frail or unintelligent and were strong enough to go the whole way and won. But at times even we wondered if paying was the easiest option, which seems to be their ambition.


So,
if you are not the driver, can prove it, and are being chased for parking on private land, trust the legal system and not the solicitors employed by the parking companies. We also did not ignore their letters and explained our case and this may have meant we won or it may have meant they thought we were worth chasing. who knows.


Our "offence" also took place in May 2012 and the Freedom of Information act did change in Oct 2012. It MAY mean things have changed.


I still do not understand why they spent a lot of money chasing us when the law is quite clear.


We also used UK-Justice on JustAnswer [info@justanswer.com] who we paid around £70 for legal advice, which proved fast and helpful.


Good luck and do not let them bully you, if you are NOT the driver.

Parking-Prankster

Congratulations on seeing this through.


This would be another useful case precedent to show only the driver is liable where the protection of freedoms act 2012 does not apply.


I would be interested in funding the approved judgement - please contact me on [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL] if you are up for this.

lorweld

Hi Op. I've split your thread out to a thread of its own.

Tangsoodo_2

Well done on the win. The more we see that people are ignoring the bullying solicitors letters the more confident others will be. I'm just about to start the process and am adamant on standing firm.

Parking prankster, I'm a little green and need to keep re-reading the stickies to get it all square in my mind. Even if the protection of freedoms act 2012 does apply surely there is a case that the owner couldn't have read the terms and conditions and therefore could not have entered into a contract.

Stroma

That's the thing about keeper liability and pofa 2012, it hasn't been tested in a high enough court, I'm not even sure if it's been dealt with in a small claim. It will be coming I guess

Trebor16

Am I the only one who is thinking this is an attempt to promote UK Justice and Just Answer?

Bantex_2

Trebor16 wrote: »

Am I the only one who is thinking this is an attempt to promote UK Justice and Just Answer?

This is advertising spam for UK Justice/JustAnswer.com. A fee charging commercial enterprise.

Bantex_2

lorweld wrote: »

Hi Op. I've split your thread out to a thread of its own.

The post is spam advertising, I would expect better from a board guide.

Coupon-mad

Even so we would like to know the case number, name, court and date for future reference for other newbies, please, OP.

If this is spam advertising then can I add to this thread that NO-ONE NEEDS TO PAY ANY WEBSITE ABOUT HOW TO DEFEND A COURT CLAIM FROM A PPC. PEPIPOO FORUM MEMBERS ARE THE FREE EXPERTS IN THIS REGARD.

4consumerrights

TW2734 wrote: »

Dear Forum


We have read and used some of the advice on this forum and by way of saying thank you wish to give you the facts behind our court appearance this week and victory when the judge dismissed the Vinci case against us.


The parking was on private land, in 2012. yes it has taken that long.


We did not know about the offence until, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, we received notification of non payment of the tickets and then very quickly proceedings by Roxburgh debt company, around 6/7 weeks after the parking offence.


Our defence from the outset was that the registered keeper could not breach the contract as we could not read the signs displayed in the car park as we were not the driver AND could prove it.


We wrote to both Vinci/Roxburgh and Graham White solicitors explaining this and requested that they stopped hounding us. The phone calls were continuous and whilst professionally executed were threatening. Their main focus was to scare us paying or into saying who we thought the driver was and used both verbal and written scare tactics.
They issued court proceedings in Northampton County Court Bulk centre in Sept 2012.
When a last attempt by Graham White to scare us again failed all went quiet and the case stalled and was "stayed". BUT it was not dead.
Around 9 months later they resurrected the whole thing.
After using Graham White initially this was then changed to GPB another solicitor, who was closed down by the solicitors general, and finally it ended with a new firm called Gladstones from Knutsford.
This time they pursued it all the way and we went to court last week with a representative from Vinci attending. The day before the hearing an inch thick document of their case arrived and the focus of their case had changed a little.


In court they accepted our defence, when asked directly, that we were not the driver (we had provided written evidence from work colleagues that we were miles from the offences at the same time) and so the breach of contract case effectively folded and it switched whether there was a legal requirement to say whom we thought may have been driving.


They quoted Barnard v Sully 1931 and/or Rambarran v Gurrucharran 1970 saying as the registered keeper we had an obligation to name or pay. The judge ruled that this was not relevant and when they offered no further precedent, dismissed the case.


Their last attack (in their court documents) was that we had acted unreasonably by not revealing details of our defence or the name of the driver and quoted Northfield v DSM (Southern) ltd 12 May 2000. This was never discussed in court at all so can only speculate on whether it is relevant. But it seemed to rely on the fact we had refused to tell them our defence until the last minute. We actually had written to them prior to them issuing proceedings and am not sure why they did not know this. Either way they did not discuss this.


I do not wish to appear to gloat as this was a long, worrying and at times frightening process. We effectively were bullied by the legal profession, in writing, who used legal jargon and case law to prove how wrong we were.


One example of their solicitors tactics was they wrote and said that we had been ordered to reveal the name of the driver by the court. In fact the court papers said "an adverse inference may be drawn by the court in the event she fails to disclose the name of the driver".


My wife and I are not frail or unintelligent and were strong enough to go the whole way and won. But at times even we wondered if paying was the easiest option, which seems to be their ambition.


So,
if you are not the driver, can prove it, and are being chased for parking on private land, trust the legal system and not the solicitors employed by the parking companies. We also did not ignore their letters and explained our case and this may have meant we won or it may have meant they thought we were worth chasing. who knows.


Our "offence" also took place in May 2012 and the Freedom of Information act did change in Oct 2012. It MAY mean things have changed.


I still do not understand why they spent a lot of money chasing us when the law is quite clear.


We also used UK-Justice on JustAnswer [info@justanswer.com] who we paid around £70 for legal advice, which proved fast and helpful.


Good luck and do not let them bully you, if you are NOT the driver.

If this is a genuine court win -then very well done to the OP.

However, several conflicting points as already mentioned.

Vinci are pretty tame in issuing court claims - so this raises a doubt.

The OP mentions researching the forum for advice -so why pay for legal advice when easy defences are researchable. This OP is either very gullible in paying £70 to defend such a small claim or is promoting the business (SPAM). No doubt if genuine claimed back legal costs.

If it is SPAM then a lot of research has gone into this posting regarding the history of Roxburghe, Graham White and GPB and also the fact that Gladstones do appear to be picking up the tab for former GPB clients.

HO87

Let's see what the OP has got to say before we leap to judgement.

Whilst I have no wish to sound patronising or condescending we do perhaps need to make some allowances. For example, there are those out there of a certain age who believe that unless you pay for something it can't be relied on or has no value. There are still others who will only feel secure with a "real" legal opinion unaware, perhaps, of the pedigree, experience and, as yet, unrivalled success rate of the contributors to the MSE/PPP team (other websites/fora are available). That aside, that same group often view the internet as being the playground of shysters but who knows?

I am not suggesting that any of those scenarios necessarily apply to the OP just making the point that not everyone has the same viewpoint nor do they start from the same place.