Looks like I am going to court with Gladstones.

The_Deep

I think it would be incredibly naive for me to solely rely on the judge simply believing me!


Why not? Are you not a person of good standing. All you need do sign a statement. Remember you are against a company not well known for its probity. They may have a down market solicitor representing them, but what can he do against the shining sword of truth.

onearmbandit

indeed I believe myself to be a man of good moral standing. But what does that matter?The judge does not know me.
I will plead my case and rely on common sense and humanity- but what if that fails? I will not be left out to dry because I believed in the decency and goodness of people. Been alive too long and been burnt too many times to know that doesn't always win out.
So if the judge doesn't believe the truth then I will win based on a legal argument they can't beat. What is wrong with covering all angles - right?

Coupon-mad

onearmbandit wrote: »

Coupon-mad

Do you think I should add something which brings in Jopson.

For example, in point 5 where I dispute the sum - I could say that i dispute the sum because I never agreed to park - I had stopped to find directions....then mention Jopson and the definition of parking...not sure if this is plausible as having looked at Jopson I have struggled to integrate it into this one. Do youhave any ideas at all?

Anyway - HAPPY NEW YEAR! I wish the best of one to all of you!

Happy New Year!

I would add a few more points because I get the impression judges DO NOT all know about parking firms 'not being known for probity' and might well start by being on the side of who they see as the 'innocent party' (Claimant) in a 'debt case' against Joe Public. After all, that's to all intents and purposes what the Supreme Court swallowed in the Beavis case...

@onearmbandit, I think you could say that:


- it is your contention that a couple of minutes asking for directions is not 'parking'. In support of this, you will show the court that the definition of parking was, in fact, clarified in a recent appeal case - Oxford County Court, JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES, case number: B9GF0A9E - on 29.6.16 by Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC. The Judge drew a distinction between brief stopping for a 'minor vicissitude' and parking, which he defined as more long-term.

This echoes the view of Lord Neuberger in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 2007 :
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/jamie.pdf

where at para 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading (people and goods)...'

The conduct in this case cannot be construed to be 'parking' (stationed on a longer term basis) but was merely the normal action of coming and going while looking for a destination. Clearly this is one of several private parking entrapment sites notorious up and down the Country; why else would there be a lurking employee hiding in the shadows, waiting to jump out and issue tickets in a place so (apparently deliberately) woefully signed and not marked as a no-stopping zone?

- Very clearly this is just the sort of predatory situation that the Government announced it was taking steps to end. In a press release entitled 'New measures to protect consumers from debt claims' parking companies have been especially singled out in a promise to:
''assess the role of parking companies and examine how drivers are informed of fines...
And the Department for Communities and Local Government will be taking further steps in due course to tackle poor practice by private parking companies.''


I would bung in all of that, personally. Makes for an interesting hearing...

The_Deep

indeed I believe myself to be a man of good moral standing. But what does that matter?The judge does not know me.


The judge has a choice, whether to believe a person of good mpral standing, or a low life scammer. Why do you have so little faith in the English Justice System?

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

indeed I believe myself to be a man of good moral standing. But what does that matter?The judge does not know me.


The judge has a choice, whether to believe a person of good mpral standing, or a low life scammer. Why do you have so little faith in the English Justice System?

Because of the Beavis case.

Barry Beavis is a person of good moral standing, who was held up by a machine failure in Staples where he was a genuine patron. Did the UK Supreme Court appear to care or even take account of what was really going on with an ANPR regime that penalises shoppers? Nope. Did any of the other Judges along the way? Nope. The 'penalty law' goalposts were moved, to allow the modus operandi described by the fat cat company owned by Capita.

Hence why people here need to disabuse Judges of the misconception that the innocent party is the Claimant, in these cases. The Government investigation should be thrown into defences (and in Excel cases I now throw in the words of Martin Cutts, versus the words of Simon Renshaw-Smith where he - allegedly - discredited a Judge).

Defendants need to show who is the real innocent party in these cases. Mr Beavis was an innocent party but assumptions were made by many (including me) that the Judiciary would see the bigger picture, would listen to the Consumers' Association and would take account of EU cases and the UTCCRs. What happened was the opposite.

Can't have too much by way of removing a Judge's rose-coloured specs. Assume they are against you, and put them right.

The_Deep

So CM, are you saying that the judges knowingly delivered the wrong decision deliberately in order to accommodate Capita?


ISTR that BB overstayed by 50 minutes and ignored all PEs letters. He certainly did himself no favours.

Quentin

Hopefully the op is savvy enough to not be swayed over the right way to approach the hearing.

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

So CM, are you saying that the judges knowingly delivered the wrong decision deliberately in order to accommodate Capita?

Do I look stupid?!! No-one would say that.

Let's see how they cope with the Brexit issue...(I think we all have a fair idea).

onearmbandit

Coupon-mad - cheers. That is exactly what I was after - needed some references to the points I'd like to make and that was simply perfect.

As for Brexit - well, not sure which way you went but I agree that the Supreme Court will ignore the expressed will of the people. If we had decided to remain this would not happen. It baffles me - without a mandate from the people successive governments were allowed to sign away laws to EU rule using the Royal prerogative whilst now, with a mandate from the people, the government, suddenly cannot use the same prerogative to take back those laws it gave away. The referendum was binding and not advisory. Sod the Supreme court. The fix is in.

The Deep - again mate, I will certainly give my account and hope that this will be enough but I need a legal argument to refute their claim if it comes to it. I cannot rely on the judge being familiar with these scoundrels or not seeing them as the innocent party. I wish the world was as simple as just telling the truth and the truth winning out but I have seen too many injustices to know this isn't always the case. Can you honestly argue any other way?

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

So CM, are you saying that the judges knowingly delivered the wrong decision deliberately in order to accommodate Capita?

THE "OLD BOYS NETWORK"

Nobody knows whose hand is in whose pocket, not even Mrs May ?

We have hardly progressed since the time of Henry V111
What Henry wanted he got regardless if it was right or wrong ?