Claim Received - Which Case Law

Umkomaas

Yes, I bumped into a friendly face who was there for the day! Was it you that I met?

Let's help you narrow this down. Male or female?

geordiebill

Umkomaas wrote: »

Let's help you narrow this down. Male or female?

Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.

Umkomaas

geordiebill wrote: »

Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.

Male? Not Coupon-mad.

Ian? Ian Lamoureux aka 'Lamilad' who put Excel Parking to the sword on three occasions. Do read two of the transcripts of his court wins against them, here:

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

geordiebill

Umkomaas wrote: »

Male? Not Coupon-mad.

Ian? Ian Lamoureux aka 'Lamilad' who put Excel Parking to the sword on three occasions. Do read two of the transcripts of his court wins against them, here:

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

It very well may have been, especially as he's just up the road, but I sincerely can't remember. Whoever it was, I hope he sees this as it was great to know there was somebody there in my corner and I'm grateful.

Those cases of Lamilad's are great!

System

UKCPM didn't attend the hearing.

Seems to be the new approach. Why pay Elms for someone who is clueless when the Witness Statement can do the job for you.

Especially true if the WS has "mistakes" and the OP can't pick them up. OP's also forget to ask for costs so it's win-win for the PPC.

Just a heads-up for those who don't see the value of help here.

Coupon-mad

I will let the person who it was, confirm if they want to. I do know who went there.

Wasn't me, I'm female and in Sussex!

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Just a heads-up for those who don't see the value of help here.

Help from bargepole, you or Lamilad is very valuable and I have never said otherwise. People need to be aware that I never said 'no lay reps' per se. Most here know what I said, and I was right.

Lamilad

Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.

It was nice to meet you.

Really pleased you won. You did what we encourage everyone to do which was to read and discern the relevant information in the NEWBIES thread, ask questions on your thread, and follow the advice given.

As such, you arrived at court well prepared with very well written documents and substantial evidence to support your case.

The outcome was never really in any doubt but you presented your case very well, nonetheless.

I was surprised the judge didn't give more consideration to your request for unreasonable behaviour costs, given the utterly baseless and unmeritorious nature of the claim.... That said, we rarely see these additional costs awarded.

I hope your colleague is encouraged and empowered by your success.

Well done!

geordiebill

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wasn't me, I'm female and in Sussex!

Yes that definitely wasn't you! Ha!

Lamilad wrote: »

It was nice to meet you.

Really pleased you won. You did what we encourage everyone to do which was to read and discern the relevant information in the NEWBIES thread, ask questions on your thread, and follow the advice given.

As such, you arrived at court well prepared with very well written documents and substantial evidence to support your case.

The outcome was never really in any doubt but you presented your case very well, nonetheless.

I was surprised the judge didn't give more consideration to your request for unreasonable behaviour costs, given the utterly baseless and unmeritorious nature of the claim.... That said, we rarely see these additional costs awarded.

I hope your colleague is encouraged and empowered by your success.

Well done!

Thank you again. I was hopeful of a positive outcome, given the amount of evidence I'd provided the court, along with the fact they didn't turn up, but it was a real boost to know I wasn't going in alone.

Re the unreasonable behaviour costs. I did enjoy seeing the judge break out into a smile that said he appreciated the brass neck of it. Don't ask, don't get!

Re my colleague (he's facing a total of 6 cases against these lot for the same car park and has won one to date). They've just notified him they're not turning up to his next case next week. We've shared documentation and we have a 100% record against them so far, so maybe they've seen enough. I certainly think he's got a case for unreasonable behaviour if they pursue all six to court!

Alas, we're now having to help yet another colleague who is currently doing the letters dance with them. The Residential Management Company, who actually run the car park (it isn't UKCPM) have a lot to answer for.

Coupon-mad

(he's facing a total of 6 cases against these lot for the same car park and has won one to date).

He needs to tell the Judge this, at the second hearing, and tell the Judge that he has already won a case on the same facts, so these other hearings are a complete waste of time & money and wholly unreasonable.

The doctrine of res judicata applies, and the party that is legally represented in the claim (i.e. the one using Gladstones) knows this and should have paid regard to their first duty, which is to the Court.

He should file a substantial costs schedule in advance, a few days before, like this one:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002886754-Successful-Costs-Application

Like you say: Don't ask, don't get!

geordiebill

Coupon-mad wrote: »

He needs to tell the Judge this, at the second hearing, and tell the Judge that he has already won a case on the same facts, so these other hearings are a complete waste of time & money and wholly unreasonable.

The doctrine of res judicata applies, and the party that is legally represented in the claim (i.e. the one using Gladstones) knows this and should have paid regard to their first duty, which is to the Court.

He should file a substantial costs schedule in advance, a few days before, like this one:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002886754-Successful-Costs-Application

Like you say: Don't ask, don't get!

He raised res judicata but it wasn't applied due to a technicality. The judge recognised the point, but the first case was for failure to display a permit and the second for unauthorised parking (or vice versa), so there was a slight variation.

The good news, however, is that the claim was quickly dismissed as they hadn't complied with the CPR requirements on notifying my colleague that they weren't attending. They'd only given six days' notice and not the required seven! They also hadn't bothered to lodge their documents with the court.

On to the next one!