Defence help. Gladstone taking me to court for a parking charge.

Britton

Lost! Will post tomorrow as currently at work. Said it complied with POFA and then said balance of probabilities it was in bit that sip run.tried none clear amount on sign but he said it was bright yellow so should have read it as he does when he parks anywhere! Always same in Barnsley, do it their own way!

Kind_Of_Irritated

What a shame. But what does this mean? "said balance of probabilities it was in bit that sip run.tried none clear amount on sign" ...

Britton wrote: »

Lost! Will post tomorrow as currently at work. Said it complied with POFA and then said balance of probabilities it was in bit that sip run.tried none clear amount on sign but he said it was bright yellow so should have read it as he does when he parks anywhere! Always same in Barnsley, do it their own way!

safarmuk

I think
"said balance of probabilities it was in bit that sip run"
means the DJ said on the balance of probabilities the car was parked in the bit of the car park SIP say they manage,

Britton

Sorry I was walking back to work as i posted! Correct with the translation though!
I queried the location of the car based on there was no clear evidence to say where the car was actually parked, whilst refering to my evidence of being a member since 2012 and how the gym had changed parking facilities in that period. I also added there was no clear contract between myself and the gym on where to park during this period.

The judge looked at the photos and commented on how poor they were, i stated that the car could be in a car park anywhere, one in Manchester for example! On one of the photos you could just see a sign about 2 parking bays away (probably all of 2cm big on the picture), at first judge said it could be anything however the gladstones guy started saying all our signs are blue and yellow. He then used a picture on his phone he had taken that morning to show the car park and the part that divides the car park between gym members and paying customers. At this point i enquired around bringing new evidence in ie the picture on the phone, again stated that things had changed since first becoming a member. The just stated something along the lines of that it was in the judges interest?

The judge then went from saying how unclear the picture was to saying that there would be no SIP signs in that part of the car park, deeming this as it was parked in the incorrect bit. I went down the path of the organisation not being that professional, commented on the safety and how untidy it was, i asked the gladstones rep to confirm this as he'd parked there so knew he would know it is a tip. The judge went down the line of balance of probabilities at this point.

I did try to state that as well as being uncertain of the driver we were also making assumptions on the location, as an attempt to try and weigh towards myself as the defendant. Adding that the POFA was very strict not just the NTK part that the judge was fixated on (earlier he'd checked the original letters complied with the POFA) however the only part I could think to back this up was the lack of clarity of the signs to create a contract. When i refered to this and beavis, the judge stated he was familiar with beavis and then went down the path that he checks the signs when he parks, and as they are bright yellow they were easy to find. I turned that back round to state that why would I read a sign if i believed i was parking as a gym member. The judge turned that around to being an issue between myself and the gym and felt that they were doing their members a disservice.

It all seemed rather subjective, i tried to say that it wouldn't even be at court if the evidence wasn't so poor as it would have been resolved without the need, but this seemed to have no effect.

After the experience i was kind of glad it wasn't for something more serious! Reminded me a bit of making a murderer series!

Kind_Of_Irritated

Looks like you drew the short straw in judges. Your point re gym membership thus not needing to check signs seems very relevant to me. Is there no way these decisions can be appealed?

Britton

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Looks like you drew the short straw in judges. Your point re gym membership thus not needing to check signs seems very relevant to me. Is there no way these decisions can be appealed?

There probably is but i imagine there is a financial risk involved, wouldnt have confidence in the system, i imagine they all urinate in the same pot for want of a better expression, at times it felt like he was in cahoots with the guy from gladstones! He said he was retiring in 3 month, probbly why he has time to read the small print on parking posters .

Kind_Of_Irritated

Yes, quite. Shame he didn't retire 3 months ago.

Coupon-mad

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Yes, quite. Shame he didn't retire 3 months ago.

Agreed, it sounds like poor Britton drew the short straw with that Judge. So sorry to hear your outcome, not for want of trying to fight this injustice.

You could write to your MP to show what this scam industry is doing to ordinary people.

:mad:

Britton

These things happen. Thanks again for all your support and hard work C-M.

Britton

Had a letter from the court, for reference it was Deputy District Judge Walters.