IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
ParkingEye Get the Chop in St Albans Court: No Standing
Options
bargepole
Posts: 3,231 Forumite
St Albans County Court
12th May 2014
Case no. 3JD04329
ParkingEye (represented by Mr Taylor)
V
Dom Martin (represented by myself)
This was a claim for £235 for two alleged overstays of the 3 hour limit at Borehamwood Shopping Park, in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. Mr Martin was adamant that on both occasions, he had visited that site once at lunchtime, and again after work. PE’s photos only showed the rear number plate for both incidents, never the front one, so we were confident this was a double ‘double dipping’ error. However, the hearing never got as far as that.
There had previously been a hearing in Jan 2014, at which Mr Martin had challenged whether PE had authority to bring a claim in their own name. As only 1 hour had been allocated for that, the Judge ordered an adjournment, and ordered PE to submit evidence of authority, as well as a properly indexed and paginated trial bundle. The next hearing (today’s) was listed for 2.5 hours.
What PE actually submitted was the usual mish-mash of irrelevant waffle, not page numbered, and containing a ‘witness statement’ from Jones Lang LaSalle, the managing agents, in their standard non-CPR compliant format.
We spoke to Mr Taylor before the hearing, and he is an experienced solicitor who also previously qualified as a barrister, but didn’t get a pupillage, so has gone back to being a freelance solicitor. He said that he had represented PE in half a dozen cases at various other courts, and had won them all. So both advocates’ 100% records were on the line.
Judge Cross (I thought I was pedantic, but could take lessons from him) started off by saying that he was going to look in depth at the issue of standing, and decide on that first. If the Claimant had standing, the case could continue, and if they didn’t, it would fail.
Mr Taylor presented the Claimant’s case on that point, and relied on the Appeal Court Judgment in VCS v HMRC, as well as the landholder witness statement. I argued that because VCS involved pre-arranged parking permits, it was a different type of contract to the present case, and could be distinguished. I also pointed out the lack of compliance with CPR of the witness statement, and suggested that it could not be relied upon.
The Defence case, still just on standing, relied on various County Court transcripts we had submitted (PE v Sharma, PE v Gardam) and also the Court of Appeal Judgment in PE v Somerfield, where it was ruled that PE could not sue in their own name, and that the monies were due to Somerfield.
We were then sent outside for 20 minutes while DJ Cross considered his decision.
His first observation, was that the claim, on the particulars, appeared to be on the basis of trespass, but in fact it was for breach of contract. He was disappointed that PE had not complied with his previous order regarding the trial bundle and evidence.
He then addressed the witness statement issue, saying that their witness statement was ‘sloppy, and a disgrace’. It failed to comply with CPR 18.1 (no full name and address), 18.2 (not all from the witness’s own knowledge), 32.19 (not an original document), and since it was just signed A. Bloggs, there was no way of knowing whether the deponent was male or female.
He decided that, as this was small claims, he would allow the statement, but that didn’t help the Claimant, because paras. 5 to 12 related to another document (the landowner contract) which had not been served or produced. These clauses were therefore hearsay, and not admissible.
There was another document they had sent, on PE headed paper, which appeared to relate to a continuation of a contract. However, the same comments applied to this, namely that it was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
The Judge then went on to talk about VCS, and in essence said that the case could be distinguished because of the way in which permits were issued, and because VCS sued for trespass, which was not the issue here. His analogy was that if his neighbour put up a sign and charged people £1 an hour for parking on the Judge’s driveway, he couldn’t enforce payment through the courts if someone decided not to pay. (He also, in passing, rubbished the bit in VCS about forming a contract to sell you Buckingham Palace).
He mentioned that he had dealt with other PE cases before, and was constantly amazed that they don’t produce the landowner contract in their evidence pack. He wondered what it is that they might have to hide.
History scholars will know that the City of St Albans, known in Roman times as Verulamium, is named after Alban, widely believed to have been the first English Christian martyr, who was beheaded by the Romans after being found guilty of harbouring a priest in around 250 AD. By now, Mr Taylor may have thought he was going to suffer the same fate.
So the claim was dismissed, with costs of £108.50.
Mr Taylor requested permission to appeal, which was refused.
12th May 2014
Case no. 3JD04329
ParkingEye (represented by Mr Taylor)
V
Dom Martin (represented by myself)
This was a claim for £235 for two alleged overstays of the 3 hour limit at Borehamwood Shopping Park, in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. Mr Martin was adamant that on both occasions, he had visited that site once at lunchtime, and again after work. PE’s photos only showed the rear number plate for both incidents, never the front one, so we were confident this was a double ‘double dipping’ error. However, the hearing never got as far as that.
There had previously been a hearing in Jan 2014, at which Mr Martin had challenged whether PE had authority to bring a claim in their own name. As only 1 hour had been allocated for that, the Judge ordered an adjournment, and ordered PE to submit evidence of authority, as well as a properly indexed and paginated trial bundle. The next hearing (today’s) was listed for 2.5 hours.
What PE actually submitted was the usual mish-mash of irrelevant waffle, not page numbered, and containing a ‘witness statement’ from Jones Lang LaSalle, the managing agents, in their standard non-CPR compliant format.
We spoke to Mr Taylor before the hearing, and he is an experienced solicitor who also previously qualified as a barrister, but didn’t get a pupillage, so has gone back to being a freelance solicitor. He said that he had represented PE in half a dozen cases at various other courts, and had won them all. So both advocates’ 100% records were on the line.
Judge Cross (I thought I was pedantic, but could take lessons from him) started off by saying that he was going to look in depth at the issue of standing, and decide on that first. If the Claimant had standing, the case could continue, and if they didn’t, it would fail.
Mr Taylor presented the Claimant’s case on that point, and relied on the Appeal Court Judgment in VCS v HMRC, as well as the landholder witness statement. I argued that because VCS involved pre-arranged parking permits, it was a different type of contract to the present case, and could be distinguished. I also pointed out the lack of compliance with CPR of the witness statement, and suggested that it could not be relied upon.
The Defence case, still just on standing, relied on various County Court transcripts we had submitted (PE v Sharma, PE v Gardam) and also the Court of Appeal Judgment in PE v Somerfield, where it was ruled that PE could not sue in their own name, and that the monies were due to Somerfield.
We were then sent outside for 20 minutes while DJ Cross considered his decision.
His first observation, was that the claim, on the particulars, appeared to be on the basis of trespass, but in fact it was for breach of contract. He was disappointed that PE had not complied with his previous order regarding the trial bundle and evidence.
He then addressed the witness statement issue, saying that their witness statement was ‘sloppy, and a disgrace’. It failed to comply with CPR 18.1 (no full name and address), 18.2 (not all from the witness’s own knowledge), 32.19 (not an original document), and since it was just signed A. Bloggs, there was no way of knowing whether the deponent was male or female.
He decided that, as this was small claims, he would allow the statement, but that didn’t help the Claimant, because paras. 5 to 12 related to another document (the landowner contract) which had not been served or produced. These clauses were therefore hearsay, and not admissible.
There was another document they had sent, on PE headed paper, which appeared to relate to a continuation of a contract. However, the same comments applied to this, namely that it was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
The Judge then went on to talk about VCS, and in essence said that the case could be distinguished because of the way in which permits were issued, and because VCS sued for trespass, which was not the issue here. His analogy was that if his neighbour put up a sign and charged people £1 an hour for parking on the Judge’s driveway, he couldn’t enforce payment through the courts if someone decided not to pay. (He also, in passing, rubbished the bit in VCS about forming a contract to sell you Buckingham Palace).
He mentioned that he had dealt with other PE cases before, and was constantly amazed that they don’t produce the landowner contract in their evidence pack. He wondered what it is that they might have to hide.
History scholars will know that the City of St Albans, known in Roman times as Verulamium, is named after Alban, widely believed to have been the first English Christian martyr, who was beheaded by the Romans after being found guilty of harbouring a priest in around 250 AD. By now, Mr Taylor may have thought he was going to suffer the same fate.
So the claim was dismissed, with costs of £108.50.
Mr Taylor requested permission to appeal, which was refused.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
Comments
-
Once again proving that PE's legal eagle (who I won't name in case the post gets deleted) is no good at her job. She can't even put together a decent court bundle.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
I'm debating whether to show ParkingEye's efforts at producing the indexed bundle ordered by a court. However, someone mentioned they broke three ribs reading Hill Dickinson's letter to me because they laughed so much. I am worried that if they see this as well it might prove fatal.Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam0
-
Serious question. Do you think DJs are getting bored of no GPEOL and are looking for other ways of getting rid of these cases?0
-
Great result.0
-
Well done once again Mr. B, it's particularly nice to see this;
Private Parking Court Cases: Won 6. Lost 0. Adjourned 2
As for Mr. Taylor, a qualified barrister, telling you that he had previously beaten 6 unrepresented members of the public, who probably had very poor defences, he must be proud. It's a bit like a premier league team saying they had beaten local factory/works team.
But then Mr. Taylor hadn't reckoned on being up against someone who actually knew what they were doing, cue Bargepole.....
Respect!All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797).0 -
Great result , and it just shows that the parking eye BS is exactly that .When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
For gawd's sake, don't let the Judge post on here, it'll upset the moderators.‘sloppy, and a disgrace’.
Fantastic days work :-)Illegitimi non carborundum:)0 -
Fantastic work, so much more so because it was in my local court and concerning a car park about which I've been making a bit of a fuss locally.
Having just been told that I can't use the term "cowboys" here (see my "new" signature, so much for Martin's assurances), I'd just like to quote Judge Cross again: "sloppy and disgraceful"Je suis Charlie.0 -
Some background to the case
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-ignore-judges-directions-for.htmlHi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam0 -
A very interesting read there Prankster, any plans on getting the transcript for this one ?When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards