County court advice needed

Dollshouse

Thanks umkomaas. The Spittlefields case (linked to) is interesting for lack of the word 'contract' on the sign.

I still don't understand the keeper address thing.

Now I really must get back to work and stop spending so much time on this. I'm self-employed and it's costing me dearly.

beamerguy

Dollshouse wrote: »

I don't see why a barrister should be awarded more just because he is a barrister. The costs that are awarded are an insult. Gladstones's 'business plan' has already cost me more than the typical costs awarded.

I read the thread about writing to Gladstones and I don't understand it. Is he saying I should write to them and ask to prove their whole case? Surely they do that in court. It says something about the correct address and the keeper. What's that about?

You are right, it's all unfair but as the county court works
on small claims, unless you know how to handle a judge,
the barrister did, such a claim would not be easy.
But, its your case, it's up to you how much you want to claim

Writing to Gladstones denying any debt and requesting proof
means just that. It will delay matters and as it is only 21 days
before new court rules comes into place, by the time
they respond new rules will apply and they will have hoops
to go through which are not applicable now

You are missing the point, yes they have to prove to a judge
their case as much as you prove your defence
By delaying this until the 1st Oct and beyond will create
a lot more work for them which possibly will not be worth it

They only work on small margins

bargepole

Dollshouse wrote: »

Thanks bargepole. I've read a bit about Gladstones but unfortunately I have to assume they will turn up in court and I do need to write a good defense.

I've looked at some of the defenses in the newby post and I can't see one that is mainly concerned with misleading and inadequate signs. I could do with some pointers.

I wonder why there has been no discussion of the Nicholas Bowen case on this forum. He was awarded £1550 costs and I wonder how he got to that figure. Can I claim a similar amount?

Should I be writing anything to Gladstones at present? I have read a post on this forum saying you should write and ask questions about keeper liabilty. The problem is really can't get my head around this keeper liabilty question.

You certainly shouldn't be writing to Gladstones, although by all accounts they don't even bother reading incoming mail, all they want to do is to keep churning out their threatograms and roboclaims.

On the question of signage, it was determined by the Supreme Court in the Beavis case that there was clear signage all over the car park, which gave adequate notice of the charge, and which could not fail to be seen. None of that applies to your case, so that's a point on which it can be clearly distinguished.

Also in Beavis, there was never any dispute that he was the driver. But if the parking operator doesn't know the identity of the driver, they have to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. However, they can only do that if their Notice To Keeper complies with all the requirements of Section 8 (which applies to windscreen tickets). They almost certainly don't comply.

Dollshouse

But if the parking operator doesn't know the identity of the driver, they have to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. However, they can only do that if their Notice To Keeper complies with all the requirements of Section 8 (which applies to windscreen tickets). They almost certainly don't comply.

I think I'm starting to understand what is being said. Are you saying that I should make it part of a defence in order to force them to have to prove I am liable as keeper and there is a chance they won't be able to do that? I don't have any of the paperwork so I don't know if they didn't get it right or not. Is this just to create more work for them in the hope that they will not want to do it?

It seems to me taking a chance on them having made a mistake with the paperwork runs the risk of being seen as wasting the court's time. Isn't it better to concentrate effort on the points I think I have a very good chance of winning, the car park signs?

bargepole

Dollshouse wrote: »

I think I'm starting to understand what is being said. Are you saying that I should make it part of a defence in order to force them to have to prove I am liable as keeper and there is a chance they won't be able to do that? I don't have any of the paperwork so I don't know if they didn't get it right or not. Is this just to create more work for them in the hope that they will not want to do it?

It seems to me taking a chance on them having made a mistake with the paperwork runs the risk of being seen as wasting the court's time. Isn't it better to concentrate effort on the points I think I have a very good chance of winning, the car park signs?

It really depends on whether or not the defendant named in the court claim was the driver.

If they were not, they should say so, and put the claimant to strict proof that their NTK was sufficiently compliant to invoke keeper liability.

If they were, then there's nothing to be gained by arguing this point, as the Judge can always ask directly when they are in Court "Were you driving?".

Coupon-mad

The claimant is ES Parking Enforcement LTD.
The car park is operated by Parking Places LTD who run it as a pay and display but ES do the ‘enforcing’.

That's interesting - and important. Whose name is on the signs then?

Dollshouse

There is a notice saying, "Parking Places LTD terms and conditions Parking places limited accept no Responsibility for loss or damage to cars Parked in this car park or the contents thereof". That is an exact transcription with their capitalisation and punctuation. That sign is in lettering about 50mm high. There are two other notices that say the same thing all on the sides of the cabin.

Higher up on the cabin there are some notices that say ES Parking Enforcement LTD and state different terms and conditions in much smaller lettering. These are the notices that mention a parking charge.

Dollshouse

This is the same car park.
There are links to photos.
The last photo shows the big sign at the entrance that says FREE CUSTOMER CAR PARK

aich tee tee pee //forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110308

Dollshouse

A few of my photos

aich tee tee pee etc //www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/36482088444/in/dateposted-public
aich tee tee pee etc //www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/36482087104/in/dateposted-public/
aich tee tee pee etc //www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/37319927065/in/dateposted-public/
aich tee tee pee etc //www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/37129536896/in/dateposted-public/

nosferatu1001

http://www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/36482088444/in/dateposted-public
http://www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/36482087104/in/dateposted-public/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/37319927065/in/dateposted-public/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/152306484@N06/37129536896/in/dateposted-public/