VCS Parking Charges (3) - Resulted In County Court Claim Form

Loadsofchildren123

yes, costs follow the event.
So a risk of losing and having to pay their costs.

There are Pre-Action practice direction arguments though, one might argue that all of this was unnecessary if they'd only complied and made out their case. Para 15 of the PD, court has power to make a costs order against a winning party. But I think it would be stretching it on an appeal.

Last couple of decisions show a departure from the "you don't have to admit you were the driver" movement. I think more focus needs to go on showing that you weren't the driver (where this is relevant/necessary) rather than just denying you were. Perhaps the judges get a bit fed up of this "I wasn't the driver and I don't have to say who was" where it is obviously a charade. In the case I'm helping on the keeper is elderly and has not renewed his licence since 2012, and he has asked the several people who were allowed to drive his car on the relevant date whether they were driving and they've said they weren't or can't remember, so he's made reasonable efforts to find out who was driving and can't compel them to make any admission. But I realise that scenario is a bit unusual.

beamerguy

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

yes, costs follow the event.
So a risk of losing and having to pay their costs.

There are Pre-Action practice direction arguments though, one might argue that all of this was unnecessary if they'd only complied and made out their case. Para 15 of the PD, court has power to make a costs order against a winning party. But I think it would be stretching it on an appeal.

Last couple of decisions show a departure from the "you don't have to admit you were the driver" movement. I think more focus needs to go on showing that you weren't the driver (where this is relevant/necessary) rather than just denying you were. Perhaps the judges get a bit fed up of this "I wasn't the driver and I don't have to say who was" where it is obviously a charade. In the case I'm helping on the keeper is elderly and has not renewed his licence since 2012, and he has asked the several people who were allowed to drive his car on the relevant date whether they were driving and they've said they weren't or can't remember, so he's made reasonable efforts to find out who was driving and can't compel them to make any admission. But I realise that scenario is a bit unusual.

I understand everything you say but how could the RK prove he/she was not the driver if he/she was at home watching TV
even though his/her spouse was the driver. He/she would not want to name the driver

Loadsofchildren123

well sometimes you can't, but on some occasions you can and I think it's complacent to just say you weren't driving.
Even if you were at home a -lone watching tv, say how you remember that, give it some "colour" - remember this is only the civil burden of proof: "I remember it well, I was watching Corrie, there was a really interesting storyline about X and we'd been joking about it at work and I'd planned my evening in front of the tv. Minutes into the episode, my mother phoned me and ruined it...."
On other occasions you might have some evidence of where you are (shopping receipt/credit card entry, a text message, a diary entry etc).
You get my drift

Coupon-mad

So sorry to hear this KimmyHrunt, some of this is truly ridiculous:

- how could you have to pay the one they couldn't evidence?

- what made the Judge decide they thought you were driving in all cases, despite no evidence?

- what made the Judge say there was no evidence that your OWN Landlord's lease didn't prove he was the leaseholder of your rented flat?

BTW for those trying to catch up, the original defence is in post #73, which was not seen here before it was submitted. At that point in October we also did not have the Jopson transcript. Added in with the skeleton much more recently.

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

ok, so working on the basis that kimmy won, can this be claimed against VCS

It remains on the small claims track, so counsel's fees would not be recoverable.

Loadsofchildren123

didnt know that bargepole, wondered and then thought it probably didn't apply to appeals

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

It remains on the small claims track, so counsel's fees would not be recoverable.

OK so what went wrong ? Is this a judge still in nappies or one who should be pensioned off early

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

OK so what went wrong ? Is this a judge still in nappies or one who should be pensioned off early

Probably neither.

As I've indicated previously, and will now state more bluntly, this OP wasn't best advised by people on this forum, and the defence and skeleton are far too wordy, with far too much emphasis on irrelevant issues such as who was driving.

And people are still banging on about POFA, and proving who was or couldn't have been driving.

Forget all that, the tenancy contract is the crucial issue here.

Coupon-mad

The defence was short - post #73, and pre-Jopson transcript.

Yet Jopson transcript was then filed at the end, along with the other usual transcripts (including Pace v Mr N) re tenancy trumping parking rules subsequently foisted on residents with no variation of contract.

Kimmy, what did the Judge say about those transcripts then?

Loadsofchildren123

Practice Direction 52.19, concerning appeal costs says:
(1) In any proceedings in which costs recovery is normally limited or excluded at first instance, an appeal court may make an order that the recoverable costs of an appeal will be limited to the extent which the court specifies.
I have to say, that's clear as mud. Does that mean that costs are at the discretion of the appeal court or that the appeal court can't order them as it's small claims?