URGENT - Court Action started - PLEASE HELP!

JodeeMcD

I WON!!! Well kind of... the Judge threw out the first claim for 'obstructive parking' as the pics didn't show how the parking was obstructive. She then dismissed the 2nd claim for parking in a motorcycle bay as the sign didn't expressly say not to park in motorcycle bays (only disabled, out of marked bays, etc) and although she allowed the 3rd claim for parking on cross hatching, she only awarded the £70 stated on the Notice to Keeper instead of the inflated £120 they wanted today.

She refused to allow Gladstones costs so we only have to pay £70 instead of the £480 they were claiming. We are very pleased with that result!

Judg was very nice and was clearly on our side wherever she could be - I don't think she was very impressed with Gladstones rep who didn't really seem very familiar with the case. She didn't allow my prelimary procedural matter in that their witness statement was only 2 days late but seemed impressed that's i tried this and said if I ever want a new career I should take up law!

She didn't think Harry Greenslades Popla comments applied here and although the signs were not as clear as in BEAVIS she still deemed them to be sufficient. She thought the claimant did follow POFA (except for the inflated cost added since the NTK) but commented that Parking Prankster often misinterprets POFA (it was one of their articles I used). I think she was still fairly impressed with the work we had put in though, which I couldn't have done without all your help here so thank you very much for that :-)

Best wishes to you all! Xx

Ps. She allowed me to speak as the Lay Rep once I submitted the Lay Reps Act, which Gladstones hadn't heard of and weren't entirely pleased about but they didn't object. My husband and I then both spoke whenever was most appropriate.

Redx

an almost excellent result , well done and it will have cost the idiots more to bring the court case than the money you are paying them , so they have lost out big time !! (although gladstones will still get their cut from the PPC, causing even greater expense)

ampersand

It's done.
It's gone.
To YOU the TKO, Jodee :-)))
#
Spread the mse word from now on, to anyone who ever receives these scam 'bills'. Redx's siggie is an accurate, compact advice map.
#
It appears GS have only one client, litigious evidently:D :
'Having quickly established ourselves as a dynamic and client-focused firm, Gladstones Solicitors has been responsive to our client’s requests to provide a broad range of legal services.'

Coupon-mad

Well done, you should email the Parking Prankster and ask him to Blog about your experience - or write a 'Guest Blog' to summarise your day in slightly more details and send it to him with a link to this thread.

WELL DONE TO YOU, I REALLY FEEL THIS WAS A GOOD RESULT ALL ROUND.

The only odd thing was that she thought a Horizon NTK is POFA-compliant (not last time I looked!). Had she heard of the Parking Prankster??!

ampersand

Cm, judge has clearly done more than merely hear of PP.

See op #40, para 4, ll 3-4

Coupon-mad

She thought the claimant did follow POFA (except for the inflated cost added since the NTK) but commented that Parking Prankster often misinterprets POFA (it was one of their articles I used)

That is interesting - did she say 'people on the internet often misinterpret the POFA' or specifically that the Parking Prankster (allegedly, but we disagree) does, as if she had heard of him before?

JodeeMcD

Specifically Parking Prankster, she said she was familiar with the website and said it gets referred to a lot.

Coupon-mad

Ooh! Did you email him to pick up on your case? He will be interested to hear that. Which court was this at again?

JodeeMcD

I haven't yet but I will do, Chichester County Court. DJ ELLIS.

Coupon-mad

What is bugging me still, is that your husband was found liable as keeper under the POFA, yet he wasn't driving, you were. I am sure Horizon don't use POFA wording. For example, here:

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2605xdt.jpg

...the final paragraph merely claims a vague right to claim the sum from THE DRIVER. Now that one is a postal version (no windscreen PCN) whereas I assume yours was a windscreen PCN each time, followed by a slightly differently-worded NTK. But did it only say they could hold the driver liable after 28 days and didn't have the required wording from para 8?

Just wondering.

I still think your result was a very good one - Judges are worrying though, in the way they misinterpret the POFA!! Another one today:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106957&st=40&start=40

A Judge ''would have allowed'' those Excel charges, if they had said they were relying on the POFA...OMG! She thought they had 'shot themselves in the foot' for saying they were not using the POFA. You could not make it up! Come on Judiciary, this is Excel and very plainly, they do not even try to use the Act enabling 'keeper liability' and haven't done since 2014!

We need to deal with that in defences, need to quote 9(2)f or 8(2)f in particular, in skeleton arguments IMHO. As well as filing Schedule 4 and Henry Greenslade's words, which certainly apply...