Appeal dismissed by IAS

Snakes_Belly

Before I go into what happened at court I would first like to mention more about my first visit when my case was rescheduled.

As mentioned in my previous posts the judge did make some comments to myself and the Claimant's representative and some comments specifically to the Claimant's representative. She also said that she would not be taking the hearing next time as she was prejudiced. She said 'she wanted someone to look at the case with fresh eyes'. I did not really understand this.

My recent hearing was with a different judge in the same court (Stafford) and was scheduled for two hours. The Claimant's representative this time was a barrister and that rather scared me a bit.

I had a brief word with the barrister beforehand and tried to find out if the Claimant had tried to ambush the hearing by introducing some more evidence. The Claimant's representative said he did not know. I can only think now that he had received the documents from the Claimant at the last minute.

We were then called in and the Claimant's representative started to present their case. Their case (as presented) was that upon being unable to obtain a ticket I should have moved my car. That I had 10 minutes to try to pay and upon being unable should have moved my car.. That I could have telephoned the helpline. That was the main thrust of the Claimant's argument.

The judge said that the 10 minutes grace period did not relate to a scenario when the motorist is unable to buy a ticket. He also said that the PPC could not expect that everyone will be in possession of a mobile phone. He stated that 'it does not say in the contract to not enter the site if the machines are not working and only enter if you have a mobile phone'.

The judge and the barrister continued to argue for some time about whether the grace period applied to a scenario when the driver is unable to pay due to a faulty machine.

Judge = contract is not specific in relation to a scenario of ticket machine failure.
Barrister = contract includes a 10 minute grace period whereby the driver decides whether to accept the terms and conditions which includes displaying a valid ticket.

Judge = Defendant was unable to purchase a valid ticket due to the failure of the Claimant's equipment

The exchange (which was quite heated) went on for some time. I did not get chance to say much as the argument continued.
The Judge did comment on the Jolley case from my defence and agreed with it.

Judge then said that this matter should have been sorted out simply by the defendant paying the PPC the £3.00 by means of a cheque in the post. I had tried to contact the PPC but they had already generated a claim within hours of the parking incident.

Judge therefore decided in favour the Claimant for the sum of £3.00 being the charge for parking for the day.

The Claimant's representative asked for costs but they were denied (they were not happy about that). They also asked for the right to appeal and were given the right to appeal. I was also given the right to appeal.

What I have taken from my journey is that in hindsight I would try to pay the parking fee irrespective of whether they accept it or not.

I would not appeal to IAS. This was a bruising experience and a waste of time. Hopefully they will not be around much longer.

That the CoP's don't carry much weight in a court.

The contract and signage (which forms the contract) are the main issues which judges seem to focus on.

Stick to the main issues (several regulars do advocate this). Judges don't seem to have much time so keep it concise. In my case the Claimant sent an 80 page witness statement much of which was irrelevant. Irrelevant cases etc. Their representatives often get these at short notice.

I agree with previous comments from posters who have won their cases about presenting their paperwork in a professional manner.

I would like to thank everyone for the help that they have given me over what has been nearly two years. I could not have done this without the help, support and guidance of the wonderful people on this forum. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant's representative this time was a barrister and that rather scared me a bit.

Well done, because I consider your case a significant win over a barrister. Something for you to be proud of.

Many thanks for that interesting summary which may help others facing a hearing.

Just editing to add, for others reading this thread, who have a broken PDT machine and no alternative method of payment available on private land, I suggest using the test of fairness and citing what Local Authority rules would be with broken PDT machines:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75880558#Comment_75880558

Two extra points suggested there for defences and Witness Statements, and also, always put the Operational Guidance relevant page in, as evidence. Judges might well be swayed by it and MUST (by law) consider the test of fairness in ANY consumer contract.

Snakes_Belly

Just a quick question about appeals please.

At the point the judge made the decision the Claimant's representative immediately asked for permission to appeal. This was granted and I was told that I could also appeal.

Upon reading up on appeals I found this.

"You may also have to get permission from the appeal court if yours was a small claims case,
and the decision was made in your absence because you did not go to the hearing".


Does this mean that the PPC will still have to obtain permission from the appeal court as they were not there in person but represented?

waamo

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Just a quick question about appeals please.

At the point the judge made the decision the Claimant's representative immediately asked for permission to appeal. This was granted and I was told that I could also appeal.

Upon reading up on appeals I found this.

"You may also have to get permission from the appeal court if yours was a small claims case,
and the decision was made in your absence because you did not go to the hearing".


Does this mean that the PPC will still have to obtain permission from the appeal court as they were not there in person but represented?

Their representative acts for and behalf of them. It is as though they are there in person.

keep_calm_and_carry_on

Hello - glad to hear you have basically won! Congratulations! Here's to never gracing the Derby Road Car Park with our custom again....

Snakes_Belly

keep_calm_and_carry_on wrote: »

Hello - glad to hear you have basically won! Congratulations! Here's to never gracing the Derby Road Car Park with our custom again....

Thanks. I will use the Lower Station Car Park if I travel from Burton again but have been going from Rugeley Trent Valley.

Excel still have time to appeal but they will have to throw more money at it.

keep_calm_and_carry_on

You can park for free on cross street if you're lucky too. Ironically I received ANOTHER small claims court set of papers this morning from excel. They're trying to have me for parking in a different bit of the car park in 2016. Argh!!! At least I've already got all the evidence.....

Snakes_Belly

keep_calm_and_carry_on wrote: »

You can park for free on cross street if you're lucky too. Ironically I received ANOTHER small claims court set of papers this morning from excel. They're trying to have me for parking in a different bit of the car park in 2016. Argh!!! At least I've already got all the evidence.....

That claim could be retaliation for winning your case. I am expecting some kind retaliation. The owner of this company tends throw his toys out of the pram.

I think that they are trying to dig up old claims before the new CoP comes into force. On their consolidated balance sheet which includes both companies there are a huge amount of debtors which must relate mostly to claims. How old some of these claims are (up to the point that they are statute barred) is difficult to say without seeing an aged debtor list. Take the debtor figure out of the equation and that would make a huge difference to the financial health of the company. The profits were down for the last financial year. I hope that they go under.

keep_calm_and_carry_on

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it in that way before. Fingers crossed they go bust before I have to endure another wasted morning in court!

Coupon-mad

keep_calm_and_carry_on wrote: »

Ironically I received ANOTHER small claims court set of papers this morning from excel. They're trying to have me for parking in a different bit of the car park in 2016. Argh!!! At least I've already got all the evidence.....

Try this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75892282#Comment_75892282

You need to get them sanctioned by your local court, if the Judge agrees.