Town Quay IS relevant land, Soton Judge decides

jkdd77

I agree with TDA- it sounds like the judge misinterpreted the byelaw. It's not the first time it's happened at 'small claims'- there was a case where the defendant was neither driver nor keeper, and the judge, despite accepting both facts, still ruled in favour of the PPC.

However, his decision is not binding on other judges, and does not constitute case law. It does not mean that POPLA were wrong, nor does it mean that a defendant should simply pay up- other judges may well rule that POPLA's interpretation is correct.

I'm surprised the judge didn't stay his ruling pending the presumably imminient SC ruling in Beavis. If the defendant appeals, and I hope he/ she does, he/ she should also add additional grounds of appeal relating to the charge not being a GPEoL, and alternatively that it is unconscionable in the context of a paid-for, rather than free, car park.

Umkomaas

jkdd77 wrote: »

I agree with TDA- it sounds like the judge misinterpreted the byelaw. It's not the first time it's happened at 'small claims'- there was a case where the defendant was neither driver nor keeper, and the judge, despite accepting both facts, still ruled in favour of the PPC.

However, his decision is not binding on other judges, and does not constitute case law. It does not mean that POPLA were wrong, nor does it mean that a defendant should simply pay up- other judges may well rule that POPLA's interpretation is correct.

I'm surprised the judge didn't stay his ruling pending the presumably imminient SC ruling in Beavis. If the defendant appeals, and I hope he/ she does, he/ she should also add additional grounds of appeal relating to the charge not being a GPEoL, and alternatively that it is unconscionable in the context of a paid-for, rather than free, car park.

This judgment isn't recent, it was from December of last year, before the Beavis case was heard at the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court was never in the picture at that time.


This is a resurrected thread that had previously had no other input since 14 December 2014.

jkdd77

Oops, didn't spot that.

Umkomaas

jkdd77 wrote: »

Oops, didn't spot that.

The curse of the resurrection!

peter_the_piper

At least it does not work with PPC's.(resurrection that is)

enfield_freddy

unless its CEL dragging up pre popla cases on coop car parks

Edna_Basher

For longtimedead’s benefit: in the last 4-5 months we have had a couple of POPLA wins against ParkingEye on the ground that Southampton Town Quay is not relevant land.

One of these is described in Post #1711 on the POPLA Decisions thread at: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

It’s definitely worthwhile including this point in any Town Quay POPLA appeal.

longtimedead

ok, firstly apologies for stirring up a hornet's nest by resurrecting an old thread, hopefully my sole intention of gaining up to date information on a specific case was at least partially justified.

My thanks to Edna Basher for providing the particularly helpful response, I have to say that having trawled this and other forums for over 4 hours last night I missed the fact that the date of that particular case superceded the local judge's ruling. I had imagined that PE would simply now defend their position on this point by quoting the judge's ruling as legal precedent and it is useful to know that this angle is not a lost cause.

I am initially just responding to rebut the NTK but no doubt the appeal to POPLA will follow in due course.

Thanks for your responses

hoohoo

The reality is that most small claims judges don't deal often with parking cases and are intimidated when the 50 page document thumps on their desk. They are not always au fait with the legal issues.

POPLA on the other hand deal with parking cases day in and day out and are all up to date with the issues.

Parking companies have tried forwarding small claims results to POPLA, who just ignore them rightly stating that small claims results are not binding and that in any case each case must be held on its merits so a paragraph or so from a small claims judgment is not really useful.

POPLA results regularly go in the opposite way to small claims judgments.

Patts_1090

I have just lost 2 popla appeals having used this defence. I am now awaiting and thinking what to do next ?

So many threads citing this relevant land. I have possible to find £200. I accept I was probably in the wrong by about 20/30 mins. But I can't afford and don't want to pay £200 to a bunch crooks. Is it worth attempting mediation ? Or waiting to go to court. Relevant land no longer seems a defence ?



Lay-repping yesterday, on a Town Quay case.

Without going through all the details, the Judge decided that the byelaws do no deal with Parking, and as a result, Town Quay is relevant land. This is, of course,a reversal of every single POPLA decision about this site to date, and I have asked the Defendant if they wish to appeal on a point of law.

More news as it comes.[/QUOT