HX Car Park Management, Gladstones Letter Before Claim

Lamilad

You should be allowed to be either, show the judge the lay rep order on your phone if you have to

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rot92ktulu1jnc4/Lay%20Rep%20RoA.pdf?dl=0

System

You should be allowed to be either, show the judge the lay rep order on your phone if you have to

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rot92ktulu1jnc4/Lay%20Rep%20RoA.pdf?dl=0

Ushers who are the first point of contact tend not to know about the Lay Rep order but do understand a McKenzie so if you explain to the Usher as a McKenzie but when you are in front of the judge as about being a Lay Rep in a polite way and give the judge confidence you are helping the court and not hindering it.

There is a lot of antagonism in the legal profession about fee collecting Lay Reps/McKenzies who just !!!!!! up the system - and as the Indigo case showed, it can go badly. So work with the judge.

Birdo26

All done and dusted and we won! Will type up more when I!!!8217;m home. Thank you for all advice .

claxtome

Great to hear.
Did you manage to claim costs?

Lamilad

Fantastic! Well done. Looking forward to your report. Please tell us which court and judge.

Birdo26

Ok, so I arrived at court with OH at around 5 past 11. As we got through to security the representative for HX was in front of us as I heard her mention our case. Followed upstairs to the usher where I asked about being a lay rep. At this point he seemed confused and said about a McKenzie friend. Started to get a little bit worried as I was the one who had done the paperwork and knew what to say.

Once we into the courtroom the judge introduced herself and said I wanted to be a lay rep. Asked my OH why and then asked Gladstones if there was any objections. Nope so we were all set.

Judge started by asking why HX had not attended themselves and seemed a bit annoyed they had not attended. Then asked if I would have like to asked questions of HX to which I said yes.

She also said their was a preliminary matter that the NTK was not compliant to protection of freedoms act and started quoting parts. Luckily I had a copy on me and was frantically marking bits off. She didn't seemed satisfied but said we will continue anyway. ( The part in question is Section 4 Paragraph 9 so have a read through that).

Gladstone rep went first saying that they had complied with this and that, showed their signage and a map of the car park. Their paperwork seemed to be a bit all over the placed which didn't impress the judge. Jude was making a lot of notes and then it was my turn to speak.

I wrote a list of all the points I would like to make and just followed them through quoting evidence and then referencing it in the reports. Started with usual unclear signage and then showed her a copy of the Beavis signage. The explained that it was a new system and referenced her to the IPC CoP where it says their must be additional signage. The judge again went back to the NTK and started asking why it was non compliant. I just started quoting from the PoF act and said it seems a bit all over the place and poorly worded. Next I went through their WS and said the things like Elliot vs Loake was criminal case and not relevant. Also the non reply to communication. I also bought up the inflated cost of £160 and she asked HX rep to explain this. Which they couldn't as they weren't there. I also bought up the point that Gladstones owners also own the IPC creating a conflict of interest. HX rep sai directors are now different but didn't have the evidence.

Judge asked if we had any questions to ask each other. HX rep asked my OH why she wouldn't admit who was driving. She just said it was almost a year ago and cant remember.

Jude then run through what both parties had said. She then said as she believed the NTK in her view was not compliant with PoF she said case dismissed. She then carried on and said there were many reasons why the case could be dismissed. Signage, that the onus to prove the driver lay with HX and not us to prove our innocence. She seemed to be very against them from the beginning and knew we was not experienced in court so took time to explain things.

Jude asked about costs and awarded £90, then asked if we had to pay for parking today and awarded another £4.70 for that as well.


Hope all that makes sense haha.

It was Southend County Court in front of DJ Molineaux.

muleskinner

Congrats - well done!

The_Slithy_Tove

Birdo26 wrote: »

She seemed to be very against them from the beginning

We've seen a number of court reports recently on the forums where the judges are less than impressed with the whole thing. I imaging that word is getting round amongst the DJs, and many of them will have noticed their courts being clogged up with these things in any case. I bet they're really frustrated when a poorly defended case comes up, as they know they are winnable for the defendant, but they can only go on what's in front of them.

Lamilad

Great stuff, Birdo. Thanks for that report

HX.... You've been Gladstoned!

Birdo26

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

We've seen a number of court reports recently on the forums where the judges are less than impressed with the whole thing. I imaging that word is getting round amongst the DJs, and many of them will have noticed their courts being clogged up with these things in any case. I bet they're really frustrated when a poorly defended case comes up, as they know they are winnable for the defendant, but they can only go on what's in front of them.

Doesn't surprise me. I overheard the rep saying shes had quite a few parking related ones this week already.