Set aside CCJ sent to old address for own space parking

dan0116

henrik777 said:

Evidence is evidence.

You either challenge it or you don't.

I don't like that evidence is not a challenge.


The claimant sent x, i have what the claimant sent, it's y not x. The judge picks a winner. That may be the one with the BEST evidence or it may simply be the most credible witness.

Thanks, I suppose all of the evidence will be taken as a whole as you say. 

I just wondered whether anyone had seen the "constructive acceptance of parking T&Cs by having displayed a permit on occasion" before. It feels to me like displaying a permit given to you by the letting agent is entirely different to agreeing that should you not display a permit, you'll be liable to a £100 charge. Had I been aware of a legitimate right for UKPC to enforce that charge then I may have acted differently at the time of the incident.

If their argument was that it was obvious from their signs that these charges applied then they should provide evidence, and a mock sign that they claim to be equivalent to the one that was displayed at the time doesn't seem to satisfy that bar. 

This may be just my naivety on how these things work though so i'd be interested to hear yours and others' more experienced opinions. 

Half_way

The display of a permit, in your case was/is clearly at your own discretions and as a courtesy, and not as an acceptance of the scheme.

If you agreed to the parking companies terms and conditions then you would not be challenging the parking charge notice

Johnersh

Is the upside down permit obviously the parking permit in the photos provided - does it have a unique appearance on the edges or something so that it couldn't be confused with any old bit of paper ?

I'd argue that:

1. the permit was displayed;
2. It was still visible through the windscreen; and
3. On the basis that the ppc (or their self-ticket flunky) regularly patrolled the car park, they would also have (a) seen the vehicle previously and its permit and (b) were therefore well aware of your entitlement to park in any event. 

Since ppcs never serve statements from the person patrolling the car park it is for them to displace those arguments - in addition as to any questions that may arise from whether you actually needed to display one at all. 

Coupon-mad

dan0116 said:

I just wondered whether anyone had seen the "constructive acceptance of parking T&Cs by having displayed a permit on occasion" before.

Everything has always been covered on this forum before!  Here is that issue discussed last month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77114550#Comment_77114550

D_P_Dance

No private company can give you "permission" to park where your lease/AST/title already gives it,  Displaying a permit in such circumstances ie therefore, imo, purly a courtesy.

Half_way

I would forget about babbling on about permits, As above if it is your space and it is designated to you, then the below applies:

D_P_Dance said:

No private company can give you "permission" to park where your lease/AST/title already gives it,  Displaying a permit in such circumstances ie therefore, imo, purly a courtesy.

its important to re-enforce the above, and give as little weight to the permit as possible.

 The permit, system and the signs imposed by the pakring company are meaningless, especially when a pre existing right exists, this is known as derogation of grant

 

dan0116

Coupon-mad said:

dan0116 said:

I just wondered whether anyone had seen the "constructive acceptance of parking T&Cs by having displayed a permit on occasion" before.

Everything has always been covered on this forum before!  Here is that issue discussed last month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77114550#Comment_77114550

This thread is really helpful, thanks.
Thanks also to everyone else who has commented. It seems like the permit, displayed or not, is irrelevant context and that the main point is do they have, and do they have the right to enforce a contract between me and them.

This commenting the linked thread is particularly helpful and in lien with what is being said above:

"(3) And that nothing of value was being offered that the resident did not already have i.e. no consideration flowed between the parties and so the elements of an agreed contract were absent, and that a consumer term cannot be deemed accepted by inaction or silence - ref Felthouse v Bindley:"

Johnersh said:

Is the upside down permit obviously the parking permit in the photos provided - does it have a unique appearance on the edges or something so that it couldn't be confused with any old bit of paper ?

I noted that the permit had fallen from the windscreen in my initial appeal to the parking company about the first of four PCNs, which I unfortunately made prior to finding this forum. For the other three PCNs there was no permit in the car.

dan0116

I have just received the following by email from the court noting that the case should be concluded as a paper disposal without a hearing. I'm not sure whether to accept this or not.

Part of me would like this to be settled and done with, and doing it like this wastes minimum court time. I do however worry about the inconsistencies and errors I've picked up in the Claimant's witness statement that the judge may not pick up on. There was no sequential evidence exchange and so I've had no chance to comment on any of their witness statement. It's also been said many time on here that, if you do win, you need to ask for and justify your costs, but I won't get an opportunity to do that either albeit I have filed a summary costs assessment. I feel like after all the help on here I could do a good job of rebutting their arguments but I'd like to hope the judge could do this on their own.

Any thoughts? I'd assume the judge who looked over the documents decided this was an easy one to conclude on without a hearing?

"Before District Judge Iyer without a hearing on 14 May 2020
UPON considering the court file and any other relevant documents; AND UPON

1) The court taking notice of the COVID 19 (Coronavirus) pandemic and the measures being taken in response and the Protocol regarding remote hearings issued on 20 March 2020 (“the Protocol”), a copy of which can be found at the following Internet address: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Civil-court-guidance-onhow-to-conduct-remote-hearings.pdf.
2) It being recorded that the court expects the parties to do their utmost to co-operate with each other in all things and lodge consent orders wherever possible.
3) The parties being reminded of the HMCTS Email Guidance referred to in CPR PD 5B which provides (among other things) that the total size of an email, including attachments, must not exceed 10 megabytes.
4) The Judge considering the “Current Listing Priorities in Civil – COVID-19 for Courts in Greater Manchester”.

IT WAS ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on 29 May 2020 is vacated.
2. Given the consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic, which prohibit listing any hearings of any small claims actions unless they are urgent, but permits the court to determine small claims actions on paper without a hearing, with the parties’ consent, the District Judge proposes to dispose of the claim without a hearing, that is, on the papers alone (“a paper disposal”). The parties must complete the Form N159 Response which is attached to this order and return it to the court.
3. The District Judge can only deal with the case in this way if both parties agree. If both parties have not returned the form to the court within 3 weeks of receipt of this order/by 10th June 2020, indicating agreement, directions will be given for a live hearing to take place, which may involve the claim being stayed.
4. Since the time limit for filing and serving evidence has expired, neither party may file or serve any or any further evidence without the court’s permission."

Coupon-mad

I have just received the following by email from the court noting that the case should be concluded as a paper disposal without a hearing. I'm not sure whether to accept this or not.

I was going to shout NONONO!  But...

But... it's DJ Iyer!  Read PACE v Lengyel!

If your papers are very strong and you have clearly asked for your £255 back, and if this is the actual hearing not the CCJ set aside (already done?) then maybe, just maybe agree.

3. The District Judge can only deal with the case in this way if both parties agree. If both parties have not returned the form to the court within 3 weeks of receipt of this order/by 10th June 2020, indicating agreement, directions will be given for a live hearing to take place, which may involve the claim being stayed.

 

dan0116

Coupon-mad said:

I have just received the following by email from the court noting that the case should be concluded as a paper disposal without a hearing. I'm not sure whether to accept this or not.

I was going to shout NONONO!  But...

But... it's DJ Iyer!  Read PACE v Lengyel!

If your papers are very strong and you have clearly asked for your £255 back, and if this is the actual hearing not the CCJ set aside (already done?) then maybe, just maybe agree.

Thanks Coupon-mad. I've linked the PACE v Lengyel case below for others. My set aside hearing was successful back in January and this is the actual hearing. The set aside costs weren't reserved but I have included them, plus the costs of preparing for this hearing, in my summary costs assessment filed with my witness statement anyway so the judge should have them.

Does the above mean DJ Iyer reviewed the evidence and made up their mind on 14/05, and that they just need agreement from Defendant/Claimant to release their judgement? Or might it be another judge who picks the case to make a decision if we decide on a paper disposal?

It appears that my case is  similar on at least two of the points Judge Iyer raises in the below in paragraph 6. UKPC has provided a contract to me, which like the one referenced below doesn't indicate any contract between UKPC and the driver. References to a contract in the UKPC signs are equally absent. I've attached pictures of UKPC's contract and signs below.

The defence below is stronger in that he had no ability to display a permit, and I did, but this has given me some confidence.

Parking Prankster. PACE v Lengyel case summary
 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html
PACE v Lengyel judgement
http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1