Persuasive appeal case - lease rights beat PPCs at residential car parks

Coupon-mad

The BMPA has obtained the transcript for the appeal case at Oxford County Court, JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES, case number: B9GF0A9E on 29.6.16, transcript hosted below:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213077149-Milton-Keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute

Apparently, a further case was also heard on the same day involving another resident, parking in their designated space with a temporary loan car which had no permit displayed. This was also successfully appealed. We do not have the full details of that one though and it seems only this one has a transcript.

But this one is a silver bullet!

Summary of the above transcript but read it in full, it is a belter I've been hoping we could get ever since we heard about the case.

This Judge was President of the Council of District Judges in 2010 so Judges will have heard of him:

Judge Charles Harris QC, found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, rather than use her own parking space. Home Guard Services sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson instructed a firm of solicitors in Aylesbury who successfully appealed the case, arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the lease which gives residents easements and specific rights which supersede any parking firm signs.

The Judge found that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. Home Guard Services were required to pay her costs of some £2,000 (Appeal case with a Barrister's input too I believe). The Consumers Association are also aware.

As this is an Appeal Case at County Court level, it can't be described as 'case law' BUT will be persuasive on the lower courts and is far more recent than Beavis. The Judge was also at pains to point out that such a case can be fully distinguished from Beavis, which did not apply.

DO read it because it also defines 'parking' (not seen defined before) so will prove useful in appeals and defences re 'stopping to let a passenger out', loading, delivering, etc.



:T

Castle

Coupon-mad wrote: »

DO read it because it also defines 'parking' (not seen defined before) so will prove useful in appeals and defences re 'stopping to let a passenger out', loading, delivering, etc.
:T

Excellent.... bang goes POFA2012 for all those "stopping" PCNs

"POFA2012-Schedule 4(1):-
This Schedule applies where
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;"

Umkomaas

Good stuff CM.

I rather like this euphemism for a 'crock of !!!!!!'

It is the responsibility of the permit user to avail themselves of any and all parking signage in the area in which they park B]a peculiarly ill composed provision[/B and parking otherwise than in accordance with the signage on site will result in a parking charge being issued.”

Half_way

Home Guard Services were required to pay her costs of some £2,000 (Appeal case with a Barrister's input too I believe)

Chances of tis payment not happening? I would guess its probable that the charge will be ignored and/or Home guard services will fold, to re-appear under a new but almost the same identity, exactly the same trick that the clampits used to pull when things got tricky for them

Umkomaas

Half_way wrote: »

Chances of tis payment not happening? I would guess its probable that the charge will be ignored and/or Home guard services will fold, to re-appear under a new but almost the same identity, exactly the same trick that the clampits used to pull when things got tricky for them

Presumably they'd need to go through a re-qualification period with the IPC and DVLA?

pappa_golf

Umkomaas wrote: »

Presumably they'd need to go through a re-qualification period with the IPC and DVLA?

only for electronic assess , paper access would be accepted but manually "vetted" for the 3 mths

bargepole

I think there's an error in the transcription of the case number in that Judgment.

'9GF0A9E' isn't a valid number, they should have 8 digits. As this started in 2015, it's likely that B9GF0A9E is the correct reference.

The letters 'GF' in the citation indicate that the super-efficient Gladstones issued the original claim. Another epic fail.

Coupon-mad

Half_way wrote: »

Chances of this payment not happening? I would guess its probable that the charge will be ignored and/or Home guard services will fold, to re-appear under a new but almost the same identity, exactly the same trick that the clampits used to pull when things got tricky for them

Oh she'll have been paid already, I expect, or they'd be in contempt of court and I don't think the Judge, an erstwhile President of the Council of District Judges would be too pleased.

The case was at the end of June.

She was assisted by a solicitor and a female barrister according to a report dated 8th July that I found in the solicitors' journal (the barrister was not at the hearing). The Consumers Association were aware too, so I am sure this one will have been paid.

I wish we had the claim number from the other one (heard on the same day involving another resident, parking in their designated space with a temporary loan car) but not sure there's a transcript, if there is then the BMPA will try to get it.

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

I think there's an error in the transcription of the case number in that Judgment.

'9GF0A9E' isn't a valid number, they should have 8 digits. As this started in 2015, it's likely that B9GF0A9E is the correct reference.

The letters 'GF' in the citation indicate that the super-efficient Gladstones issued the original claim. Another epic fail.

I did think it looked short!

And that is a great spot, a Gladstones case! Home Guard were well and truly Gladstoned and this one has legs to run and run.

henrik777

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh she'll have been paid already, I expect, or they'd be in contempt of court and I don't think the Judge, an erstwhile President of the Council of District Judges would be too pleased.

The case was at the end of June.

She was assisted by a solicitor and a female barrister according to a report dated 8th July that I found in the solicitors' journal (the barrister was not at the hearing). The Consumers Association were aware too, so I am sure this one will have been paid.

I wish we had the claim number from the other one (heard on the same day involving another resident, parking in their designated space with a temporary loan car) but not sure there's a transcript, if there is then the BMPA will try to get it.

B9GF1A3E if it's the Homeguard v Keefe one. Only have the original loss transcript though.

The_Deep

I am puzzled why both cases were lost in the first instance.