Senior Judge Spanks Civil Enforcement in Appeal Hearing

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

bod1467 wrote: »

Exactly what I was wondering. However I suspect it's not at a high enough court to be able to set a precedent.

It is a precedent, just not as strong as higher courts. You can certainly refer to it and it will be something that another judge can consider.

ledsons_teeth

Just noticed the CEL barrister was Richie Ritchie.

bondy_lad

well done to all,,,please take a bow.how much did that barrister charge charge????,,,hopefully alot.ritchie ritchie eh,,,more ritchie now then.

SevenTowers

Well done BP - Respect!

Nodding_Donkey

I bet there'll be barristers queuing up to represent parking companies now:dance:

I know they still get paid but what an embarrassment :rotfl:

The_Deep

Excellent news, it seems so obvious. No one in their right mind would agree to pay that sort of some for a few hours parking, why has it not been sat on before, and if it has, why are PPCs still trying their luck.

All we need now is a few PPCs to appeal against genuine estimates of loss and lose, but I doubt if they will.

4consumerrights

[

QUOTE=bargepole;discussion/4903216]At: Luton County Court
Before: Mr Recorder Gibson QC
Date: 21/02/2014
Case No.: 3YK50188 (AP476) On Appeal from Watford County Court
Appellant: Civil Enforcement Limited – Repesented by Barrister Richard B Ritchie QC
Respondent: Kerry McCafferty – Assisted by myself

This was an appeal by CEL against a ruling by Judge Wharton at Watford County Court on 03/10/13, that CEL’s charge of £150 was a penalty, and therefore not enforceable. The original Judge had followed OBServices v Thurlow closely, and reached the same conclusion.

Very well done Mr Bargepole and team - why was CEL's charge £150 - was this pre-POFA/previous BPA COP limits?

Surprising at the choice of Barister by CEL - Mr Ritchie's expertise lies in insolvency cases - maybe CEL will need him again at this rate!

CEL really must be dumb to appeal - their charges like all PPCs have no legal basis for justification by whatever pretence they purport their charges are based upon.

If I was the OP - I would seriously consider raising a personal costs notification now against CEL for harassment and stress caused. I note that the original thread stated that also the signage was not compliant - so no "contract" (even if able to offer one) was made and that the sum for the alleged breach did not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Hardly surprising this was deemed a penalty for failing allegedly to pay for a £5 ticket.

He quoted at great length, passages from Euro Appointments v Claessens, Exports Credits Guarantee v Universal Oil, and others in support of his arguments......

The respondent was asked to reply, and we relied on the main points in the skeleton, which were that the purpose of the charge was to deter, and it was therefore a penalty; that the appeal had been brought on different grounds from those at the original hearing; and that the cases cited by Ritchie involved individually negotiated contracts between parties of equal standing, and could therefore be distinguished from the present case.

These PPCs do like citing these individually negotiated contracts which have no relevance to their pre-determined signage, which cannot be compared on a like-for like basis to support the commercial justification case.

No doubt you both enjoyed your well earned buffet - but really Bargepole you are implying that Andy “Two Dinners” Foster may have ate too much? Surely under the terms of their "all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant" it is part of the contractual arrangement that you must eat all that you can for the price paid - depending on the wording and signage of course.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

4consumerrights wrote: »

[

Very well done Mr Bargepole and team - why was CEL's charge £150 - was this pre-POFA/previous BPA COP limits?

Surprising at the choice of Barister by CEL - Mr Ritchie's expertise lies in insolvency cases - maybe CEL will need him again at this rate!

CEL really must be dumb to appeal - their charges like all PPCs have no legal basis for justification by whatever pretence they purport their charges are based upon.

If I was the OP - I would seriously consider raising a personal costs notification now against CEL for harassment and stress caused. I note that the original thread stated that also the signage was not compliant - so no "contract" (even if able to offer one) was made and that the sum for the alleged breach did not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Hardly surprising this was deemed a penalty for failing allegedly to pay for a £5 ticket.



These PPCs do like citing these individually negotiated contracts which have no relevance to their pre-determined signage, which cannot be compared on a like-for like basis to support the commercial justification case.

No doubt you both enjoyed your well earned buffet - but really Bargepole you are implying that Andy “Two Dinners” Foster may have ate too much? Surely under the terms of their "all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant" it is part of the contractual arrangement that you must eat all that you can for the price paid - depending on the wording and signage of course.

Maybe a ticket for staying to long ?

ColliesCarer

4consumerrights wrote: »

[ Surely under the terms of their "all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant" it is part of the contractual arrangement that you must eat all that you can for the price paid - depending on the wording and signage of course.

Does that mean once you have you suffer the Penalty
(holds hands over ears to drown out the load groans)

Sorry couldn't resist - but well done to all concerned. Great win!! :beer:

Coupon-mad

4consumerrights wrote: »

[
Very well done Mr Bargepole and team - why was CEL's charge £150 - was this pre-POFA/previous BPA COP limits?

It was Sept 2012 I think, so pre-POFA.