Excel, Bryan House Wigan

hoohoo

In this case I would advise appealing to the IAS.

As you were not the driver, you can appeal on those grounds
1) I am appealing as vehicle hirer
2) I was not the driver. I am the (owner of a company?) and get other people to drive my vehicles for me
3) Excel did not comply with the requirements of a notice to hirer

The IAS are essentially a kangaroo court so to get a win you will need to 'prove' (2) and hold their hand through (3).

In the worst case, a witness statement signed by yourself that you were not the driver should be sufficient. Any other proof would improve your chances.

For (3), list all the reasons why the NTH is not compliant, in language a child would understand.

bootup

Thanks guy;s for the advice. I have two and was thinking of trying both one IAS and one court. Time is very much an issue and i will be too late with one. Will keep you posted. At home now and paperwork is in the office so will come back in the m orning.

bootup

I have tried to get a long doc in two sections and they finished up the wrong way round. Anyway this is my appeal.after taking your advice. Would some kind expert take a look and see what you think. I'd be really grateful

Thanks.

bootup

IPC
22nd October 2015
Ref: Charge Notice No:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Excel have issued a Parking Charge Notice to Petit Forestier , the registered keeper on the 11th August 2015. They have informed me and issued a letter of authority to challenge the PCN as we were delivering goods to a new client whose delivery entrance is located in this car park. Excel have then reissued the PCN to me, XXXXXX at our company address to which we have received their rejection letter on the 9th September albeit that it is dated the 4th.

The facts of the case are this:

A new customer, the Chinese Buffet has their delivery entrance in the car Park of Bryan House in Wigan and at challenge a copy of the delivery note has been provided.

We appeal to IPC on the following grounds.
1. The amount charged does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
3. No contract with registered keeper as per ‘The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013’
4. The keeper is not liable for this charge under POFA 2012
5. Excel are trying to enforce an unfair contract as per ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ & OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms Guidance’
6. Incorrect information on PCN.
7. The PCN breaches the AOS code of practice in a number of areas
The correspondence is addressed to me XXXXXXX
I am not the driver merely the correspondent of the challenge and appeal. XXXX are the keeper of the vehicle and XXXXXX are the registered keeper.
Excel are in direct conflict with the strict criteria laid down by POFA 2012 which states:
POFA 2012 states:
13...
(2)..
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

There can be no liability as there is no “named person” as required 13(2)(a) no copy of the hire agreement, 13 (2)(b) and no copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement which would identify the driver. The statement by the Registered Keeper identifies our company only and not the driver as is required under 13(2)a.
The vehicle in question is a trade vehicle and, as such, has different drivers from day to day. The keeper rarely, if ever, is the driver any more than a lorry displaying "Mr Kipling" on the side is ever driven by the said Mr Kipling. Any attempt to assume that the keeper was the driver at the time is inaccurate and the person named in the letter of authorization is not the driver.
It appears that the “Parking Charge Notice” is confusing insomuch as it is neither a Notice to Keep nor a Notice to Hirer as referred to in the Act. It seems that it is a catch all term, however;
It is also non- compliant with paragraph 9(2)(h) of schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically “identify” the creditor not simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of “The creditor is…..” The keeper is entitled to know who the party with whom any purported contract was made. The operator has failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
POFA 2012.

Hire vehicles.

13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if— .
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and .
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be). .
(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— .
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; .
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and .
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. .
(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must— .
(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer; .
(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer; .
(and it is immaterial whether the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) relates also to other charges or penalties of any kind).


As may be seen little of the above has been complied with.
We therefore submit that Excel have not satisfied the strict criteria of POFA to hold the Hirer responsible so may only pursue the driver whose identity has not been disclosed in any correspondence and/or require proof that these invoices are subject to VAT as required above. We will be contacting HMRC to confirm should this be the case.
VAT.
Business Rates and VAT applicable if the Charges are Contractual Agreements for the Provision of a Service

Excel runs a business the at the specified location for revenue and profit, and their signage appears to attempt to create a contractual agreement for ‘services’. We put Excel to strict proof that business rates are being paid to the local authority valuation office in respect of this ‘contractual parking service’ business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue and Customs.

Excel’s failure to use consistent language to that of the IPC/IAS, along with inconsistent language within their own literature is at best a reflection of negligent and sloppy practice, and at worst it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to frustrate the appeal process with the IAS. I respectfully ask the IPC assessor to consider my points and photographic evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.

The rejection letter from Excel states” We note the comments you have made advising that the driver was unloading on site at the Bryan House car park. However, we must advise that the vehicle registration number was not on the exemption list for the day in question. It is important to note that by making a call on the helpline number situated at the bottom of our signs, the driver can provide the vehicle details and therefore avoid a PCN being issued”

The only information regarding commercial vehicles on any of the signs is a small picture of a truck with the legend No Lorries. HGV’s buses/coaches or caravans.
There is no further information advising drivers to use the helpline in order to register the registration number. Our company delivers to many outlets which have car park control. Even Parking Eye who regulate The Marriott Hotel car parks allow for pre-registration of vehicles with each hotel and when a vehicle is not on that list due to replacement vehicles for servicing or breakdown, they allow proof of delivery to be presented and cancel the PCN. This is clearly the intent of the landowners who require deliveries daily and clearly delivery drivers do not abuse the parking privilege’s and fulfill an important supply chain function to the client.

One of our employees has visited the site on the 22nd and spoken to Nicole, one of the supervisors at the restaurant. She has immediately telephoned to Excel whilst our employee was there and she was informed that the delivery driver could go into the delivery entrance and inform the restaurant of his arrival who would then contact Excel and inform them. It is now too late to obtain a written statement to verify this fact but one will be presented to the court should the IPC reject our appeal.


Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it reflect any material damage Bryan House or Excel. The fact that the charge is none-itemised and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no-more than a disguised penalty. Which has been issued in the form of a misleading un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximising revenue for Excel.
If the charge is an attempt at gaining compensation for a loss to the businesses then it is not commercially justified and has no basis in law to be claimed.
1. Therefore the parking charge is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. We wish to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note: the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting an IAS defence. Also losses must not include normal overheads costs incurred by Excel in the running the business.
Therefore on this point alone there can be no justification for rejection of this appeal.
2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

Excel are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, We wish Excel to provide us with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. We believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives Excel the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor.
We reject strongly that any contract was ever entered into by the driver when entering the site..

Excel have breached the new Consumer Contracts Directive from the EU, specifically the information requirements in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013:

They failed to serve by 'durable medium' in advance, the geographical address and phone number of their client, since Excel is acting as an agent of the principle, as evidenced by their phrase “ Management of this site is conducted via ANPR cameras that take photographs etc” As Excel are the owners of the ANPR cameras they are clearly “managing” the site.

Also they failed to ensure that the contract was 'expressly agreed' which is a requirement of the regulations - agreement can no longer be assumed or implied. It is trite law that a contract read (or in this case, not read) merely from signage leads only to 'implied consent': 'a manifestation of consent to something through conduct, including inaction or silence' or ' Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.'


Quite clearly express consent (as required by this law) was never given to enter into contract.

Quite clearly express consent (as required by this law) was never given to be subject to additional unsolicited charges which is what this PCN quite clearly amounts to.

So it fails the test of 'express agreement' in advance of a consumer contract, which is now demanded by the EU Directive and current Consumer Regulations i.e.'Express consent is clearly and unmistakably stated, rather than implied.'

It is the will of Parliament, following the recent EU Directives on Consumer Contracts, that UK consumer contracts are now unified in terms of what is required by way of information before the contract is concluded. Also contracts must be 'expressly agreed' so a contract based merely on implied consent from a sign, fails the new statutory regulations:

These Regulations apply to all UK consumer contracts from June 2014, unless they are within the exempt list (which a parking contract is not).
The information to be given to consumers is provided in Schedule 2 (On-Premises) and Schedule 2 (off premises and distance contracts) of the Regulations.''

Part 4 of these Regulations has provisions concerning protection from unsolicited sales and additional charges which have not been expressly agreed in advance (this was an unsolicited charge not expressly agreed at all, so this is a breach of the Regulations).

Regulation 39 introduces a new provision into the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which provides that a consumer is not required to pay for the unsolicited supply of products (as happened here – the NTK is an unsolicited invoice).
Another breach by Excel.

Regulation 40 provides that a consumer is not required to make payments in addition to those agreed for the trader’s main obligation, unless the consumer gave express consent before conclusion of the contract
No payments were expressly agreed in any way.


Information breaches of these Regulations:

This Operator has failed to serve in a durable medium, ANY information as defined in these Regulations for Distance Contracts (i.e. not face-to-face) as set out in Article 13:
Information to be provided before making a distance contract
''13.—(1) Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader — (a) must give or make available to the consumer the information listed in Sch. 2 in a clear and comprehensible manner, and in a way appropriate to the means of distance communication used, and
(b) if a right to cancel exists, must give or make available to the consumer a cancellation form as set out in part B of Schedule 3.
(2) In so far as the information is provided on a durable medium, it must be legible.
(3) The information referred to in paragraphs (l), (m) and (n) of Schedule 2 may be provided by means of the model instructions on cancellation set out in part A of Sch.3;
(4) Where a distance contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information—
(a) the information listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (l) and (s) of Schedule 2 must be
provided on that means of communication in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), but (b) the other information required by paragraph (1) may be provided in another appropriate way.
(5) If the trader has not complied with paragraph (1) in respect off paragraph (g), (h) or (m) of Schedule 2, the consumer is not to bear the charges or costs referred to in those paragraphs.
(6) Any information that the trader gives the consumer as required by this regulation is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.
(7) A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.''

Almost everything that is required by this statute has been omitted, including no information given about the right to withdraw in the case of a distance contract (because this is certainly not one that can be agreed face to face). There is no exemption from this even for distance contracts with limited space or time. Even if this is not considered to be a 'distance contract' the Regulations set out that all Consumer Contracts (except 'exempt' ones which parking contracts are not) require certain information including the geographical address and phone number of the principal, for complaints, where a trader is an agent.

The Regulations show that a failure to provide the statutory information and to obtain express agreement, now renders any UK consumer contract unrecoverable.

There will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumption can be drawn as such therefore Excel must withdraw their action against the keeper. Excel also has no legal basis to pursue the keeper on the pure assumption alone that they were the driver. Any further contact with the registered keeper will be considered harassment.

7. Excel are trying to enforce an unfair contract as per ‘The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’

Unfair Terms
5(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

Also the OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms Guidance’:

Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens

‘'18.1.3 ...transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.’’

8. The PCN breaches the IPC own code of practice (Accredited Operator Scheme) in the following areas (some of which have been previously mentioned above but are included again for clarity).

Part B
8.1 If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimated loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts.
Excel have breached this part of the code as they have failed to produce a ‘genuine pre-estimated loss’ as covered under point 2 above.
14.1 Predatory Tactics – ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the code.’

Not informing drivers as to how to register. Making an assumption that the “Helpline” is to be used without clearly stating that it should be used for the purposes of registering delivery vehicles is not only misleading, but seems calculated purly for the purposes of revenue creation.

9. The PCN breaches the IPC own code of practice (Accredited Operator Scheme) in the following areas (some of which have been previously mentioned above but are included again for clarity).

Part B
8.1 If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimated loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts.
Excel have breached this part of the code as they have failed to produce a ‘genuine pre-estimated loss’ as covered under point 2 above.
14.1 Predatory Tactics – ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the code.’


ANPR Equipment.

It has recently come to light that their ANPR equipment is asynchronous. To be used as evidence in the manner presented the PCN you would need to prove that the equipment is synchronous, thus:

Collection Of data By remote systems

a. Systems using the internet protocol are by their very nature Asynchronous
b. To use the time data derived from a client and server, it must be shown that the two are synchronised. The time stamp on data collected by a server , the application, is derived locally to the application. A camera may also have a local clock but it is not the clock of the server nor the application. To use the images and time stamps produced by a server that is remote to the camera requires that the system has its own upper layer timing. If the system at any point uses connectivity provided by a third party, for instance ADSL data connections, then upper layer timing is required and some form of traffic flow security. An alarm and log would have to be implemented to warn of loss of Sync. If Excel Parking cannot show that the system is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. And any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is flawed.

We wish therefor to put you to proof that the timestamp recorded on the entry and exit photographs is a true and accurate record of the times at which those photographs were taken. Specifically:

• Was the equipment used to record the timestamp regularly synchronised to a nationally-recognised standard clock?
• Can the claimant produce synchronisation logs to prove this?
• If the equipment used to record the timestamp was remote from the equipment used to take the photograph, what protocols were in place to synchronise the two?
• Can the claimant produce synchronisation logs to prove that they were so synchronised?


Finally, and we apologise for the lengthy discussion, we would draw your attention to Case No. 3JD00517 Parking Eye v James Clarke in the Barrow in Furness County Court. Of particular interest are paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12 and 16.

7. However the claimants have produced a copy of an apparent letter of authority from the landowners, giving the Claimants the authority to issue parking charges to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the approved operator scheme by any method up to and including by legal proceedings.

8. But there is a problem with this situation. It was identified by District Judge Jenkins, among other District Judges, in cases which have been quoted of Parking Eye v Sharma in Brentford County Court, and Parking Eye v Graham. Other District Judges including District Judge Ackroyd appear to have reached different conclusions. Of course all these decisions are of no more than persuasive authority and each case, in any event, is dependent on its own facts.

9. District Judge Jenkins appears to have reached the conclusion, and he seems to have set the hare loose on this point, that the contractual arrangement between the landowner and the agent for the agent to manage the land does not entitle the agents to bring proceedings in their name even though their contractual requirements may entitle them to do so, and also impose upon them an obligation to recover fees from those who use the parking facilities. So he has quite simply found that it does not give the right or authority to bring legal proceedings in their name.

12. This is a claim for damages for a breach of contract and, of course, it is trite law that the courts do not enforce penalties under the guise of an assessment of damages. Claims for damages or for breach of contract are claims for damages for financial loss resulting from a breach.



16. So I am satisfied in these circumstances that the Claimants, as in the case that District Judge Jenkins dealt with and in the Case of Gardam, both recent cases, One in High Wycome and one in Brentford, I am satisfied in this particular case the Claimants are the wrong claimants. They have not satisfied the Court that they have suffered any loss from the breach of contract. If anything, they make profit from the breach.

In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in but was obvious when paying for parking at the end, and where the plaintiff had parked often before. He said:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”



Yours Sincerely

Ralph-y

OK tongue in cheek ......

1: yes but under the bounds of probability the defendant has not proved his case .....

2: due to circumstances not listed in the appeal becoming apparent we allow the appeal ......

which ?????????

Ralph:cool:

g0wfv

I suspect IAS will (maybe) read it, (certainly) ignore it, and (probably) judge in favour of their fully paid up member.

This isn't an unexpected outcome, but I'm fairly sure some of the above will hold sway in a proper court should it go that far.

It's all part of the business model (IMHO) - wear folks down so (unless they know better) they'll just pay up!

(Option 1, to answer Ralph-y!)

The_Deep

Excellent OP, let us see how they like them apples.

bootup

I have also made a formal complaint to Wigan Council and asked them to assist me in finding who the landowner is....i believe they had a stake.

I'll e mail on Thursday afternoon. till then, can anybody find a way to improve and have better proof. I have photo's of the signs which will go too.

Thanks for the contributions everyone.

doublinedancer

Final pages added and sending this afternoon.


We encloseherewith colour photographs of the sign at the entrance to the car park as wellas a copy of the rejection letter from Excel.

You will note that the signing bears absolutely no reference to delivery drivers procedures for carrying out their essential supplyto the shops whose delivery entrances are situated in the car park.Loading/unloading is not considered parking in the normal sense and we know that it is not the landowners wishes to restrict or abolish this vital supplyto his clients, the said businesses described herein. It is our opinion, given the rejection letter, that the omission of the facility for delivery drivers tocarry out their business is done purposely as a method of generating revenueand which is further confirmed by the content of their rejection letter.

We have lodged a formal complaint with Wigan Council and will be in contact with the landowners regarding these questionable practices which will most certainly affect the effectiveness of local businesses.

Finally may we draw your attention to the following which, after a short browse through yourCode of Practice, is considered relevant to this appeal:

14.Predatory Tactics

14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to luredrivers into incurring parking

charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will

be dealt with under the sanctions system asdefined in schedule 2 to the Code.

Webelieve failure of the signing to indicate procedures for delivery drivers tofollow is both predatory and misleading, further e evidenced by the letter of rejection.

4.1 Where a credito receives notification from a vehicle hire company that at the

specified time therelevant vehicle was under a hire agreement then a Notice to Hirer

must besent to the hirer.

NoNotice to Hirer received.

(h)Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made.

Assumedly the landowner is the creditor within the description of relevant land but notidentified.

Schedule 1 - Signage

Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage

within the site must besuch as to be obvious to the motorist. The example above provides

for an entrance signb efitting of a ‘Pay and Display’ operation. The precise wording on a sign

is a matter for the Operator but such wording should not go on to explain the terms and

conditions of parking and unless ALL of the terms conditions are then listed.

All theterms are not listed as there are further requirements for delivery drivers.

5) Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the

reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or

committing a trespass as the case may be;

Areasonable delivery driver would not expect to pay for a parking space. Thereare no parking spaces in the delivery areas’. If a driver hazard a guess as tothe intent of the parking operators intentions or must phone up at eachdelivery to gain access, the delay in making each delivery will incur latedeliveries to each client, more PCN’s due to late arrival into time restrictedzones and the clients on behalf of whomthe parking operator is working, not receiving deliveries on time if not atall. Clearly not their intention.

Similarly, where yoursigns grant motorists a licence to enter and remain on your land in

accordance with the termsand conditions of that licence, you may make it clear that if they

act outside those terms and conditions yourequire them to……

Very fewparking operators own the land, it is not Their Land but managed on behalf ofan owner.

The independence of the adjudicators is paramount in ensuring motorists see theirappeals

areconsidered fairly. You agree to indemnify the IPC against the decisions of theIAS.

Having been forced into some considerableresearch (this is our first appeal to IAS) we have come across some decisionswhich have caused uproar in the media at large and not, as you indicate,“considered fairly”, This seems to be the consensus of opinion.

We trust that fairness and justice will prevailfor our delivery drivers and the clients to whom they deliver.

By way of example we enclose a cancellationnotice from Parking Eye for one of our lorries who delivered to a MarriottHotel and which had not been registered.

We operate many vehicles and, due to repairand servicing (every six weeks) there is no time to register nationwide thosereplacement vehicles. Parking Eye understand this, clearly Excel do not nor dothey wish to and we are sure that the courts would agree if or when thisbecomes necessary. We enclose two cancellation letters from Parking Eyereceived today.



Enclosures:

3Photographs of the signing

2Parking Eye cancellation letters

Copyof Excel’s letter of rejection.

Guys_Dad

Wonder if that appeal is actually longer than POFA?

It starts off well, but does tend to get consumed with the author's growing confidence in their own skills, becomes waffly and irrelevant.

When reading it, I was reminded of Jim Hacker when he became all Churchillian and pompous.

Look - you don't need all of that and you are obscuring your real points with IAS appeal-losers. Yes, no matter what you write, IAS will almost certainly turn you down, but this appeal may form part of any future court papers and I am afraid that professionals, such as judges, don;t really like amateurs who think they have the professional skills.

Am genuinely trying to be helpful.