Court Claim - Horizon Parking / Gladstone Solicitors

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks for posting this, pmj1991. Is it possible for you to upload the sign?

brianj1991

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Thanks for posting this, pmj1991. Is it possible for you to upload the sign?

The Prankster has kindly blogged on my case, and this has included a photo of one of the signs.
Please see: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/horizon-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

This is one of the four signs at the site. The other three are different to this one and are identical to each other - I will post soon. But the content is similar.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks a lot. I have been advised that mine is a forbidding sign too, though some say it depends on the judge on the day.

beamerguy

pmj1991 wrote: »

The Prankster has kindly blogged on my case, and this has included a photo of one of the signs.
Please see: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/horizon-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

This is one of the four signs at the site. The other three are different to this one and are identical to each other - I will post soon. But the content is similar.

Could you kindly add this as a new thread so everyone can easily see it
Horizon Parking - you've been Gladstoned
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/horizon-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

Redx

well done PMJ

some funny stories this month on pranksters blog and yours is one of them

really like the OVERSTONE court one with those numpties LINK parking , surprised they are even carrying on in court after recent losses , especially against tenants or "fluttering tickets"

TW1234

"Claimant put to the Court to consider whether Defendant was the driver, rather than consider PoFA / whether they could pursue as registered keeper.

Defendant has said:

• I am not the driver
• Claimant should not presume this
• Other people drove the car on various occasions
• Puts claimant to proof on him being the driver and pursuing him as such

Judge advised she cannot presume Defendant is the driver, but has to use all of the evidence to find a fact based on balance of probability.

Claimant has stated they carried out all steps to warn driver and allow someone to appeal. Judge satisfied Claimant served PCNs on car (evidenced by photos), satisfied letters sent to RK (evidenced by copies). Defendant accepts received letter before action from Gladstones, unsure if received some or all of others from Horizon, but advised he would not respond anyway to an unknown company he has no relationship with. Claimant is entitled to write to DVLA RK address, cannot be criticised for that. Judge says it is likely that Defendant was aware of who Horizon are and why they were writing, and therefore could have written back. Judge agreed Defendant had chosen not to and found his answers less than clear.

"Judge considered all circumstances including the fact this is my vehicle, that Defendant had not stated he was not the driver in my defences and given unclear answers today, the fact that he had the opportunity to respond and chose not to; these factors influenced her decision. Judge said he should have at least denied he was the driver by responding to the PPC and in his witness statement.

Because of this, and putting the onus on Claimant, plus having no evidence that he was elsewhere, the Judge found that Defendant is the driver as a fact."

Does this open up an opportunity for PPC to always be able to consider RK to be driver, purely on balance of probability if RK is not willing to offer evidence that they were not?

Coupon-mad

They will try. But much is up to how a judge views the case and I gleaned that this Judge wasn't overly happy with some responses so she leaned towards the unusual view that the keeper/defendant was driving. I can't recall one like that, so it's unusual.

The_Deep

If the defendant is obviously a lying tow rag, and was in fact the driver, then, in my view, the judge is perfectly within his /her rights to take the view that he/she was driving. I have often had to take similar decisions in Immigration matters.

It is up to the defendant to prove to the judge that he/she was, on the balance of probabilities , elsewhere. .

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

If the defendant is obviously a lying tow rag, and was in fact the driver, then, in my view, the judge is perfectly within his /her rights to take the view that he/she was driving. I have often had to take similar decisions in Immigration matters.

It is up to the defendant to prove to the judge that he/she was, on the balance of probabilities , elsewhere. .

I thought that if the PPC (claimant) was arguing that the keeper was the driver, then the burden of proof rested with the claimant, not the defendant?

Or does 'The Deep's Justice' only apply?

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

I thought that if the PPC (claimant) was arguing that the keeper was the driver, then the burden of proof rested with the claimant, not the defendant?

The burden of proof does rest with the claimant, but in civil proceedings (as distinct from criminal), that burden can be satisfied on balance of probabilities, i.e. 51%.

So in the absence of any statement by the RK that he wasn't driving, or any evidence to the contrary, the judge can make a finding of fact that he was.