GEMINI/County Court Business Centre Claim

KeithP

Laura_Anne wrote: »

I found this, would I be OK emailing it Admin court:
administrativecourtoffice.manchester@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk

Yes, if that's your court, that's fine. But take copies with you on the day.

Make sure your email clearly show the case number, date, time, etc.

Lamilad

Thanks, yes I found those, there are two, one from 2010!https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/right-of-audience/57199.article

and one from 2017!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/rights-of-audience-rules/5060342.article

But have you found the case law that supports your RoA challenge?

The McShane, and Ellis transcripts?

System

Thanks, Yes now downloaded both of those

Coupon-mad

If this is at Manchester court, the Judges there do seem on side, against PPC scams!

It's a big court, so get there early to get through security & to calm yourself/pop to the loo, etc.

System

The hearing was this morning, the Defendant arrived in plenty of time for the 10.00 hrs start - no one appeared for the other side initially, it transpired that the GEMINI solicitor was in another case. I'm guessing that as he was going to be late my daughters case was put to the end i.e. 2:30 ish (having been first to arrive!) The Courts were one Judge down and another had to leave early, some cases were being rescheduled.

Firstly, Right of Audience was requested and ignored by the Judge, then all of the Defendants defence was batted away, the 20 minute pick up/drop off is, apparently, only in designated areas, the judge completely ignored the appalling lack of signage, and the Beavis comparison was also ignored.

With regard to NTK it was insisted that as other letters had reached the defendant, therefore, on the balance of probabilities the NTK must have. The car being insured in the defendants partners name didn't cut any ice, the Judge insisted the 'No Keeper Liability' law has changed and no longer has to be proven by the Claimant, it can now be decided on balance of probabilities.

The balance of probabilities stacked up against the Defendant and the Judge paid little head to any of the accompanying evidence i.e the shortcomings of the NTK highlighted accompanied with the POFA, the Henry Greenslade wording, I had even included the Duff High Court Decision. The ticket was incurred 15 months ago, the Defendant was working a bank shift at a hospital that wasn't the normal place of work. The car was used regularly by someone else and frequently dropped off at the Claimants work for them to get home (Defendant having been dropped off earlier in the day) Because the Defendant was vague about what happened on that one particular day 15 months ago, the decision went against them.

The good news is, instead of having to pay the 245.00 requested on the Claim form the sum that needs to be paid is 141.00. The lesson learned is that 'Proven' is now not required and 'Balance of Probabilities' has replaced it.

beamerguy

Firstly, Right of Audience was requested and ignored by the Judge, then all of the Defendants defence was batted away, the 20 minute pick up/drop off is, apparently, only in designated areas, the judge completely ignored the appalling lack of signage, and the Beavis comparison was also ignored.

Sorry to hear this. it is very sad that there are a few judges
around who don't have a clue and clearly must be re-trained

You were unfortunate to have such a judge

The balance of probabilities stacked up against the Defendant and the Judge paid little head to any of the accompanying evidence i.e the shortcomings of the NTK highlighted accompanied with the POFA, the Henry Greenslade wording,

Not often used as the courts are fully aware of the
parking scam. This particular judge showed their ignorance

The good news is, instead of having to pay the 245.00 requested on the Claim form the sum that needs to be paid is 141.00. The lesson learned is that 'Proven' is now not required and 'Balance of Probabilities' has replaced it

Well the parking company will not get much of that by
the time the legal sharks take their share .. maybe 10p in the pound ?

The 'Balance of Probabilities' has not replaced proof, it's
just you had a very bad judge.
Such judges should be farmed out to grass as goodness knows
what errors he/she makes

Who were the legals ????

System

I was shocked at his dismissal of all the defence, particularly at all the back up as well i.e POFA, Beavis sign and comparison sign. My daughter explained that the Judge only seemed interested in her account of the day 15 months ago, which if she was to be honest, was vague and just a normal day. She never found out who the legal was. She said that after she asked the Judge about Right to Audience and he had refused he carried on talking so she didn't get the opportunity to query with the solicitor herself. Gemini were a no show, we tend not to think the Solicitor was not from Gladstones as he sat in the waiting room familiarising himself with my daughters witness statement (she recognised the pics) when he'd finished it, he approached my daughter and offered to settle out of court.

beamerguy

Laura_Anne wrote: »

I was shocked at his dismissal of all the defence, particularly at all the back up as well i.e POFA, Beavis sign and comparison sign. My daughter explained that the Judge only seemed interested in her account of the day 15 months ago, which if she was to be honest, was vague and just a normal day. She never found out who the legal was. She said that after she asked the Judge about Right to Audience and he had refused he carried on talking so she didn't get the opportunity to query with the solicitor herself. Gemini were a no show, we tend not to think the Solicitor was not from Gladstones as he sat in the waiting room familiarising himself with my daughters witness statement (she recognised the pics) when he'd finished it, he approached my daughter and offered to settle out of court.

Gemini did not have to show as they employed Gladstones
who in turn employed a "hired mouth" and more often than
not, the hired mouth does not get the info until the day

At the start of the case, the judge would ask each person
who they were so at that stage, your daughter would have
known who the solicitor was.

The judge would only relate to the date of the parking offence

Personally, I would write this off, you got a discount.
If this happens again, you will have a better insight

System

Its definitely written off, and yes I agree it could have been worse. Hopefully it won't happen again, having said that, the hospital she works at have two different permit schemes for staff, these can only be purchased from a shop which has very limited opening hours. One of the permits is like a lottery ticket, you have to scratch off each day that is used, Gemini keep issuing PCN's to these users incorrectly, the hospital is having to get Gemini to rescind the PCN's, each rescinded PCN costs the hospital 18.00. There is some comfort knowing Gemini may have lost money today. The other permit is purchased on a monthly basis, if either of these permits are lost or missing you run the risk of incurring a ticket whilst trying to replace it because of the limited opening times of the shop. Its a minefield!

Tx2mush

Please help I have looked everywhere for the newbies defence template for parking claim form but can not find.