Residential parking in allocated bay - Court Claim received

bdark2755

Oh no this is very distressing to read, I’m so sorry that you lost one. I’ve been following this thread with interest as I’m in the same predicament. Live in a gated complex and my permit fell off the dash onto the seat even though it was face up and clearly visible I didn’t get anywhere with my online appeal with the parking operator. 3 tickets on the car by the time of my next need to use it as I commute by bus.
The chasing letters have started and at the moment I’m in ignore mode.
The only difference in my case is I own the space, but am now fearing the worst.
I would much appreciate a more detailed update when you feel up to it, but can fully understand how you must be feeling at the moment.
What were the reasons for winning one and losing one? That seems very unfair to me.

kaych

I am sorry to hear that you have lost your case. It must be so frustrating considering that you have every right to park in your own allocated space. I am so angry with PPS and wished there were more I could do to destroy them.

I am fighting a similar case myself (residential car park with allocated car parking space - but my case was they issued a new permit and I did not display the new one on time) against the PPS but at the POPLA appeal stage at the moment. It would be most helpful if you could share the reasons the judge dismissed your arguments, as I am using similar arguments as yours for my appeal.

Coupon-mad

bdark2755 wrote: »

Oh no this is very distressing to read, I’m so sorry that you lost one. I’ve been following this thread with interest as I’m in the same predicament. Live in a gated complex and my permit fell off the dash onto the seat even though it was face up and clearly visible I didn’t get anywhere with my online appeal with the parking operator. 3 tickets on the car by the time of my next need to use it as I commute by bus.
The chasing letters have started and at the moment I’m in ignore mode.
The only difference in my case is I own the space, but am now fearing the worst.
I would much appreciate a more detailed update when you feel up to it, but can fully understand how you must be feeling at the moment.
What were the reasons for winning one and losing one? That seems very unfair to me.

If you OWN the space why the heck are you scared and agreeing to display a permit at all?

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Click on and read Link v Parkinson.

Start your own thread about how you should be fighting back, not fearing the worst.

Zita_Z

Hi Everyone,

As a few of you seem to be interested in a more detailed account of my court experience, I thought I would try and recap what happened.

As our court date was a weekday morning, both me and my boyfriend had to take a day off from work. We got to the court about half an hour before our appointment. Funnily, we were scheduled for the exact same time. So there was a question of whether we would be called in after one another, or at the same time, but to a different judge. I think this must have thrown the Gladstones guys too as they had to send two solicitors on the off chance that our cases are being held in parallel. One of them seemed to be prepared, while the other only got the memo the afternoon before (he later admitted this). My guy came up to me before the hearing, we shook hands, I gave him an icy cold poker face stare (I wasn't there to make friends).

Then they called my boyfriend in, and I was prepared to sit there and wait until his hearing is over. However, after about 10 minutes, the judge called me and the other solicitor in. He said that it looked like the two cases are so similar that if we all agree, they could be heard at the same time. He initially seemed kind and understanding of the fact the A) we're not lawyers we're from abroad, so he explained the process etc. Then he asked if we would be okay with switching the order of the testimonies (is that what they're called?), so that he would hear us, the Defendants speak first, then the Claimant (Gladstones). And he also said something along the lines of later coming back to any unclear points. I was quite happy with this proposal, as it seemed logical and something that could help us. So I went ahead and used my skeleton argument to list my main defences. As I thought that there would be a rebuttal stage after Gladstones's round, I did not go into much detail about my rebuttal defences - big mistake.

My main arguments were:
- Primacy of contract - my AST specifies an allocated parking spot
- Unclear chain of authority between me and the parking company. The Estate Rules are vague about the parking scheme system and actually point to a completely different company managing parking (lazy !!!!!!!s probably forgot to update the document). The 'contract' they dug up for their Witness Statement is questionable as it is signed by the Managing Agent, not leaseholder/freeholder. So I wanted to challenge this.
- No unauthorised parking took place. I had the right to park, they can't take it away. The signs and threats posted in the car park logically only apply to people who actually try to park there without the right.
- Sticker permits are not fit for the purpose - they peeled away from the window after months of usage, they should have provided better quality stickers, as it's their responsibility
- Permit scheme is unnecessary in a gated, PIN-protected car park
- Their terms (on the signs) are unfair and put residents at a disadvantage (no retrospective evidence, paper-based permits that 'have to be fully displayed at all time'. I tried to protest this using uncontrollable events, vis maior etc. saying that weather conditions or air movements can affect the sticker.
- I did not want to rely on this heavily, but they did not prove that I was driver and I intended to keep it this way
- I brought up ParkingEye v Beavis to distinguish my case from that
- In my case, I had timestamped photos from the morning of receiving the PCN with the sticker visible on the floor
- In my boyfriends case, the sticker was still half visible in the crack between the windshield and the dash - it was partly covered by the tinted bottom part of the glass.

Once I was finished, the judge asked a few questions, and then Gladstones had the opportunity to speak. They agreed that the guy who was more prepared should speak...

He challenged all my defences in the nit-picky way that these people do, they know how to twist everything...
Their responses:
- As my AST has a clause that says that the Estate Rules form part of my agreement, they were quick to point out that the Estate Rules do mention a parking scheme. They acted dumb when I showed them that the documents point to a completely different company in charge of parking. The judge seemed to hold onto this for a minute as it was hard to determine which overrides which. My main goal was to create a bit of confusion and make them sweat. As they had the 'contract' dated 2015, it would have been possible that someone else took over since. But then based on the balance of probabilities the judge ruled that it was most likely that they DID have a contract with the estate...
- They also pointed out that the signs are clearly visible and they say that the permit has to be fully visible at all times, no exceptions etc... They avoided the whole subject of vis maior or weather etc. affecting this. They kept saying that we should have made sure they were visible (like I was gonna camp out next to my car 24/7?? Unreasonable). They also avoided the fact that they don't in any case accept retrospective evidence. The judge seemed to side with them as a 'follow the rules to a t'-kind of person...
- The last-minute guy also added that even though the car park is gated and PIN-protected, it does not fully prevent from unauthorised parking and that there is a benefit to having the parking scheme. He also said that the terms/estate rules/whatever document mentions that if the sticker needs to be replaced, you can request one from some maintenance guy. He did not mention that they want to charge you £10 for every replacement sticker.. he said that I could have asked for a new permit at any time if I felt the old one was losing its grip... [And what, replace it with another low quality piece of paper?]
- He challenged my photos saying that they are not timestamped. This feels like it put me at a very big disadvantage and played a huge part in the judge ruling against me. The photos I took were on my phone, so the metadata did include the timestamp (this information was also retained in the digital copies of my witness statement), but obviously did not appear in the print copy of the photos the judge looked at during the hearing. Modern phones don't actually burn a timestamp in photos (whereas their cameras do), so maybe it was a poor choice of words, or I should have attached a metadata screen shot of the photos. Anyway, the judge did not let me intervene (I raised my hand and everything like a school kid), so even though all it would have taken is to have one look at my laptop screen (I had it ready), I did not have the chance to use it.
- In my boyfriend's case, they got into this whole thing about the meaning of the word 'display'. The Gladstones guy insisted that the word 'display' implies that something is being seen. So then the judge spent a few minutes contemplating the linguistics of the issue.

This is pretty much all I remember from their speech. As I mentioned, I was fully under the impression that I would have a chance for rebuttal (it wouldn't have made sense to me logically to cite my rebuttal defences BEFORE hearing their arguments), but the judge seemed to have heard enough and sent everyone out while he came to a decision. I was shocked, at that point I was really mad, at myself for apparently 'misunderstanding' his explanation of the procedure, and also at the judge cause it didn't seem fair.

After about 10 minutes, he called us back, and more or less addressed all the points raised.
- With regards to the paperwork nitty-gritty side of things, he pretty much sided with Gladstones on all points. 'Based on the balance of probabilities', apparently, he thought it most likely that they had a valid contract, he thought it most likely that my managing agent had the authority to sign that contract (on behalf of 500+ flats, even though it was clearly not for our benefit - goes against so much of the case law I read up on), he thought their terms were not unreasonable etc. He also said that base don the balance of probabilities, I was likely the driver.
- He basically said that Parking Eye v Beavis DOES apply here, which made no sense to me. He basically defended these guys and said that based on that case the charge does not have to correlate with a loss. Even though I clearly mentioned that PE v B does not apply in residential cases. He didn't say anything about retrospective evidence not being accepted or vis maior.
- He also disagreed with my point that using a digital system would be much better and more convenient for residents as opposed to the outdated paper permits. He said something like 'he doesn't think computer-based system is required'. So much for discouraging these companies from operating these horrible schemes.
- He also dismissed my sticker quality defence, agreeing with Gladstones that I had the opportunity to ask for a new sticker at any time (I was going to point out that the maintenance guy's office is only open Mon-Fri 9-5, which is the exact time me, my boyfriend, and most people's working hours are, so no, I could not have got a new sticker 'anytime' - moot point as I never got to chance to actually say this).
- In the end, it all came down to the technicalities of the individual cases. He agreed with Gladstones that as my photos were not _literally_ timestamped, I could not prove they were taken at the time of receiving the PCN. So I lost. In my boyfriend's case, I think he mentioned something along the lines of 'intention', that the sticker was displayed with the intention of being seen/fully visible, and the fact that it was partly covered did not mean that it was not displayed. So he dismissed their claim against him.

One of my biggest pains is that I did not get the chance to use one of my best rebuttals - in all the time I lived at this place, the space next to us was occupied by a motorcycle. it never displayed a sticker (for obvious reasons), and despite of this, I never saw any PCNs being issues to its owner. Maybe he did have some sort of agreement with the parking company, but nevertheless, it completely disqualifies their argument that the sticker must _always_ be displayed and _fully visible_. My boyfriend said that even this may not have mattered as I could not prove that the bike owner parked there of that he never got a PCN (even though I took some photos of the bike at one point). Do you think this would have changed anything?

All in all, what threw me off was how formulaic the judge's process was. At the beginning he did mention that he expected us not to talk over each other and interrupt etc., which is reasonable, I understand that this is court, not a family dinner But I did not expect him to be so strict and not allow any back and forth discussion. And as I mentioned my understanding was that after the Gladstones speech we'd have a second chance to speak. That would have been a very good structure in my mind. Whereas having us fire all our shots first, and then letting Gladstones try to cover their asses with legal mumble jumble put us at a disadvantage. I'd love to hear others' experiences with this, especially someone who goes to court more often as
a solicitor etc? Is this normal or did we really get the short end of the stick?

Last few minutes were spend with the paperwork. I wrote a list of costs for my boyfriend, which was more or less accepted. Although the judge did say as it was the two of us in the car, he's only going to allow half of our fuel costs to be submitted. This sounded silly as the cases were independent of each other, had he not taken on my case at the time, he wouldn't have learned that we even lived together? Also, I lost my case, so it's not like we were trying to claim back the same money twice. He should have been awarded with the full fuel cost.

When it came to how much I'll have to pay Gladstones, the judge did pick up on the fact that they were asking for 8% interest, which is quite ridiculous given how interest rates are universally in the gutter these days. But in the end I still ended up with a £200 bill to pay VS £100 being paid to my boyfriend.

So this may explain why I have very mixed feelings about my experience. I did not expect the scales to be tipped in my favour, but I also did not expect everything to sort of be working against us either. Especially given the fact that my taxes pay for these county courts to exist, and they are being used by these bottom feeders to extort money from innocent people.

Even more irony for you - as we were about to leave the council-operated car park, the machine would not accept my card to pay. It was a new system that used a checking in and checking out process (rather than prepaid - which makes sense in this setting), so we had to call the operators and they were gonna send me the invoice to pay via email. Guess what, a week later, and there's still nothing in my inbox. So I might end up with another, council-issued parking ticket acquired while trying to defend myself at court. My life is like a sitcom, or dramedy, more like.

Umkomaas

What a great, detailed report, one of the very best I’ve read here. It’s just a great shame that it was to detail bad news. Sorry about your loss, but I guess it’s slightly less of a bitter pill to swallow given your bf’s success.

Thanks for sharing with us.

System

DJ lottery but jointly you are paying out £100 for all their costs which are Court fees (£100), Gladstones fees (£100) and Lay Rep Fees (2 * £150).

Forgot to add the 2 * £100 that they wanted at the start so ....

You are out £100. They are out £500 plus they didn't get a further £200.

You have to wonder what genius at Gladstones think that costing a client a net £400 for them to NOT get £200 is a useful way forward.

There is someone being scammed here, and IMHO it's the PPC.

claxtome

I am so disappointed to hear/read the outcome of this case. You obviously had prepared well but it looks like, as IamEmanresu said, you were unlucky in the DJ you got. Sorry

Zita_Z

IamEmanresu - this made me laugh, thanks for making me feel better about the whole thing.

I tried to do the math myself too but I wasn't sure about fees etc. so I couldn't tell exactly how much it would have cost them. I think that in this case the PPC actually sold the debt to Gladstones (at a discounted price I assume), which takes the risk off their shoulders, and Gladstones then decide to either take it all the way to court or not. Surely the PPCs wouldn't be in it if they were to destined to lose money?

beamerguy

Zita_Z wrote: »

IamEmanresu - this made me laugh, thanks for making me feel better about the whole thing.

I tried to do the math myself too but I wasn't sure about fees etc. so I couldn't tell exactly how much it would have cost them. I think that in this case the PPC actually sold the debt to Gladstones (at a discounted price I assume), which takes the risk off their shoulders, and Gladstones then decide to either take it all the way to court or not. Surely the PPCs wouldn't be in it if they were to destined to lose money?

Unlikely that Gladstones purchased the debt. As far as Gladstones
is concerned, whilst highly incompetent when acting for the
PPC's I doubt they would put themselves in a complete
failure position .... mind you, in saying that they now seem
to be in "failure" mode a lot recently

Loadsofchildren123

You should normally get the opportunity to reply.
So it goes like this:
Claimant makes their case
Defendant makes their case
Claimant gets to reply to any new points raised
Defendant gets to reply to any new points raised


I think it was mean of him not to let you speak again, given that you are a LiP and essentially misunderstood that you wouldn't get another chance to expand on anything or reply to them, but unfortunately he's king in his little kingdom.