Parking Eye Court Claim

trisontana

PPCs want this "battle" to be one sided. It's OK for them to employ legally trained people to take the case to court, but they cry "foul" if the poor motorist, who is not very skilled in the ins and out of the court process, tries a get a bit of help. Typical bully behavior!

Coupon-mad

45mip19lot wrote: »

LiseyLou............our hearings are on the same day.

I have submitted my witness statement, so use mine if you like and just alter it to your credentials.

You sent me a PM, I replied but you have not responded to my reply>

Tell us when and where please, both. We want to know which ones are you (some of us get court lists).

liseylou

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Tell us when and where please, both. We want to know which ones are you (some of us get court lists).

OK - I've got both our case numbers and dates; times and court address. I'll send you a message if that's ok??

Coupon-mad

Yes - it's just so we can keep an eye on it when we see the case on the court listings - sometimes you might be near to a regular poster who might be able to help.

liseylou

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes - it's just so we can keep an eye on it when we see the case on the court listings - sometimes you might be near to a regular poster who might be able to help.

Did you receive my PM??

Dee140157

If it didn't bounce back to y saying her in box was full, she probably did.
C-M will be back at school now, so won't be around as often as she has for the school holidays.

liseylou

I have just called Portsmouth CC and they said that the cases cannot be heard together, regardless of the similar circumstances, because we are different defendants.

Perhaos this is a Portsmouth rule, as other cases have been heard together previously and I am sure that when you complete the MCOL process, they ask if you want more than one case heard at the same time.

In relation to asking for the case to be 'stayed', she said that this is something we need to ask the judge at the hearing.

BenefitMaster

liseylou wrote: »

I have just called Portsmouth CC and they said that the cases cannot be heard together, regardless of the similar circumstances, because we are different defendants.

Perhaos this is a Portsmouth rule, as other cases have been heard together previously and I am sure that when you complete the MCOL process, they ask if you want more than one case heard at the same time.

In relation to asking for the case to be 'stayed', she said that this is something we need to ask the judge at the hearing.

If you can get the joined and stayed, and give 2 weeks notice, Portsmouth is one of my local courts :-)

CM has already asked me if I can do next week, which I can't unfortunately. Also I would have to ask for some expenses, though they wouldn't be much shared between you..

bargepole

liseylou wrote: »

I have just called Portsmouth CC and they said that the cases cannot be heard together, regardless of the similar circumstances, because we are different defendants.

Perhaos this is a Portsmouth rule, as other cases have been heard together previously and I am sure that when you complete the MCOL process, they ask if you want more than one case heard at the same time.

In relation to asking for the case to be 'stayed', she said that this is something we need to ask the judge at the hearing.

I'm not aware of any cases being heard together, other than Lemon and Harris at Southampton, and of course Beavis and Wardley in the 'test' case. Generally, courts don't do this.


You should obviously be trying to win this on the facts of your own case. If the Judge is against you, and is relying on the Judgment of HHJ Moloney in Beavis, then your fallback position is that you can ask the Judge to adjourn the hearing until the Beavis case at the Court of Appeal has been determined. (hearing is 23rd/24th Feb, case no. 20142010).


The other side will object to that, but your argument should be that it is clear from the Judge's Permission to Appeal document, that he went out on a limb in making that ruling, and is asking the CoA to make a binding ruling on the issues.

Coupon-mad

I have sent you and Mike a pm with more detail and thoughts (some parts not to be raised on here...yet) but two extra things in addition to my pm:


1. DO NOT RELY ON THIS THINKING:

PE have gone in strongly around the Cambridge case which is totally irrelevant (in both of our cases), as Tower Rd is not a free car park.

The fact it was a free car park was never the crux of the Beavis case, so whilst it does differentiate your own car park from that case 'a bit' it doesn't really stop them arguing Beavis. They will. It is by no means 'totally irrelevant' and you both need to be MUCH more prepared to argue the matter and have the HHJ Moloney decision with you (in triplicate) to point out the caveats in his decision. Many Judges will find it persuasive anyway unless the facts are very different - but in your cases PE will also argue they are the principal I expect. This will need a fair bit of preparation, don't dismiss that argument as without merit because a Judge probably will think it very relevant. Read HHJ Moloney's decision and print it out as well as the 'leave to appeal' to the CoA he granted, and note the case number and date of that Appeal.


2. Your car park is a P&D car park. Remind me, did you and Mike BOTH say in your defence that ''the Notice to Keeper isn't compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability'' as one of the defence points, or not? And did you both only ever defend as KEEPER (driver not identified) so PE are having to rely on the POFA 2012 against you?

If yes - then your evidence for that non-compliance with 'mandatory and prescriptive' NTK wording is as discussed in post #1 (point 2 of the POPLA appeal shown there) and post #17 (my post) in this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5053347

Even if it's not a feature of your defence that the NTK isn't compliant, as long as you are defending as keeper then PE 'have' to show that the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 mandatory & prescriptive wording & deadlines were followed (print out 3 copies of the entire Schedule 4 about keeper liability and read it until you and Mike can see what's missing from their NTKs!). Be ready to produce a copy of the NTK (in triplicate!) in open court and then to ask the LPC law chappie or chappess, to tell the Judge where it complies with the 'second condition' for keeper liability.

They'll struggle - be ready to point out why 'either/or' and not stating the amount of unpaid parking fee on the NTK, makes it non-compliant. No second condition fulfilled = no keeper liability for you and it's too long ago for you to have any clear certain idea who was driving on that occasion, especially as PE don't put a PCN on a windscreen.

If the LPC law person objects if this wasn't raised before say that the whole claim hinges upon compliance with Schedule 4 if they want keeper liability and you are entitled to point out a discrepancy in their own evidence which shows they haven't complied with the only Act that would allow them to pursue a registered keeper. The wording has to be right - and the ''amount of the unpaid parking charges'' is not and cannot be the PCN sum because the driver was never given the opportunity to pay that sum by any mechanism prior to the date of issue of the PCN. The only sum the driver could have been able to pay, 'not later than the issue date/time of the NTK', was a pay and display tariff. And that tariff isn't mentioned on the PCN and nor is any info about how much was paid or not, as the case may be. So, this PCN fails to state what was paid and what remains unpaid, as well as using a confusing description ''by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted''. That's too woolly and omits a huge chunk of what is required under paragraph 9 to fulfil the 'second condition' for keeper liability.

If you don't have a copy of the NTK, at the hearing when it's your turn to speak, as one of your points, ask for the LPC law person to show you and Judge the copy PE are relying upon as you believe it doesn't comply with the prescriptive and mandatory wording in the second condition of Schedule 4.

Have the points you intend to raise written down in large bullet points for yourself on the top of your defence bundle, so you can see them even if stressed.