Claim form issued - Gladstones / HX Car Park Management LTD PCN

Skyboss

So, today was the day of the court case. Claim ref. D8GF11AY. At Huddersfield County Court.

HX Car Park Management v Defendant

We (myself and my wife (Defendant)) arrived at the County Court Huddersfield a good hour before the case was scheduled. We checked in with the Court Usher and I enquired about representing my wife as a lay representative. The Usher seemed a little confused, he was also very busy, there were a lot of cases booked in for today and the majority of them were PCN related looking at the case schedules listed on the notice boards. Our case had been allotted 90 mins where the other cases ranged between 30 mins and an hour. Were we in for a grilling??

The Usher offered me a McKenzie form to complete but I refused as this would not allow me to speak on behalf of my wife. The Usher then suggested I speak with he Claimant's Representative (CR), which I did and she had no objection but said it would be ultimately up to the Judge.

We were called in 20 mins early, we all agreed this was ok.

We were shown to Judge Heels' Chambers by the Usher (Judge Heels is a female Judge). The Judge welcomed all and went on to say that this would be a relatively informal process and not like any court case we may have seen on the TV, any information we may forget to mention and then reference or rely on later would be allowed. We were well prepared (thanks to this forum) but still a little nervous so this put us more at ease. Present in court were myself, the Defendant, the CR and Judge Heels. The Claimant's witness (Kenneth Marland, Director of HX Car Park Management LTD) did not attend.

The Judge then mentioned that I had requested to represent the Defendant as a lay representative and asked the CR if she had any objections. She didn't. The Usher must have passed on this info. or the Judge had got this from the Defence document originally submitted.

The Judge had not received a copy of the Claimant's witness statement and exhibits and asked the CR if she could have hers. The Judge did not seem overly bothered about not receiving the Claimant's witness statement. The CR then asked if she could reference the Claimant's witness statement electronically on her phone as she had no other hard copy. The Judge allowed this.

The judge stated that this case in her opinion relied on one major point which was whether the signage was in place advising patrons of the car park / La Luna restaurant that the T&Cs had changed and free parking was no longer allowed for free after 6pm. If she was not satisfied by the CR and witness statement of the Claimant in this area then she would not need to proceed and consider any further points from either witness statements.

She questioned the CR who stated that the signage advising patrons of the car park and La Luna of the change in T&Cs and that free parking was no longer allowed were in place pre-March 2017 according to the Claimant's witness statement. The Judge then questioned me as to whether the signage was in place, I answered that the Defendant believed that signage was not in place and that had it been then more money would have been paid to extend the period of parking. The Judge considered the Claimant's witness statement further and then, addressing the CR said that she had difficulty understanding where the proof was that the signage was in place and reminded the CR that the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case and it appears they have not done so here. The CR requoted the Claimant's witness statement which read "The sign stating that free parking was no longer available to La Luna restaurant users after 18:00 were erected on the site pre March 2017, and is situated right next to the pay & display machine which the Defendant clearly used to pay for and register their parking. The parking charge was issued on the 16 May 2017."

The Judge then said that she was not satisfied that the sign was up at the time of parking, the Claimant's witness does not identify the source of knowledge and that she was dismissing the case.

The Judge then asked if we were claiming expenses. I offered a costs schedule showing £187 for a day off work, £2.50 parking and £9.00 return travel expenses. She awarded £90 which she said was the max for day of leave plus parking and travel expenses to be paid within 14 days. A total of £101.50.

It was all over in less than 15mins!!!

Excellent result! It was a great feeling to have come out on top and have HX Car Park Management pay me / us costs of over £100. It makes it all worthwhile. My wife (the Defendant) was ready to give it all up and pay the £237.98 which was the total amount on the claim form. But now she is glad we persisted. The worst that could of happened is that we would have had to pay the £237.98 plus any other costs Gladstones dreamt up so we had nothing to lose.

I can't thank you all enough, those who have helped me along with this, myself and my wife are very grateful for all your help.

It just shows how greedy and foolhardy these car Park Management companies are. Gladstones aren't bothered I suppose, they get paid either way. The CR couldn't care less, she wished us well and was happy to get an early lunch. HX Car Park Management lost out financially and Gladstones look like fools, albeit well paid fools!

It has also opened my eyes to what can be achieved by like minded people who are willing to give up their time and offer their advice and expertise to others. It is a very good feeling to have gone through this with the help of this forum and it's members. In the end I thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience in court, being prepared is the key. Thank you.

If there's anything I've missed or more info needed, please let me know.

Coupon-mad

Hooray, brilliant to read that.

What a waste of court/consumer time these useless claims are, and I am so pleased that your wife is now glad you persevered and beat the scam, and claimed costs too!

Do please stick around (as work and family allows). You've learned a lot and won a case. Winner!!

People like Lamilad came here same as you, with a fake PCN and two court cases to fight - he won, and now advises posters as often as work allows.

Ralph-y

well done ....

have you complained to your MP ?

RE .......

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.



again well done

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

The Claimant's witness (Kenneth Marland, Director of HX Car Park Management LTD) did not attend.

Well would you believe that! A fair indication of Maryland Jnr's confidence in his Claim and his cowardliness at the thought of being put under questioning by a Judge. A bit like his old man - bully boy, but petrified of the consequences. Probably can't string a few words together, so hide behind Gladstones, who hide behind a rent-a-gob, gun-for-hire freelancer to put the case.

Just read some of this semi-literate drivel.

https://www.facebook.com/hxpcn/

C***ts, the lot of them! This industry stinks.

[Deleted User]

Interesting. Well done. :T

I think that the DJ could have awarded you more costs, but as noted, better to make them pay than not at all....

One approach may be to seek your costs as lay rep at the max prescribed rate and then claim the costs of your O/H as a witness (for which the costs are unlimited). As ever with costs there never seems to be much clarity with what is awarded....

Lamilad

One approach may be to seek your costs as lay rep at the max prescribed rate and then claim the costs of your O/H as a witness (for which the costs are unlimited). As ever with costs there never seems to be much clarity with what is awarded....

Interesting, Johnersh. I wasn't aware these costs could be claimed. What part of CPR deals with these? Can't see them under 27.

[Deleted User]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - expenses are unlimited.


CPR 27.14(d) is expenses, so it should be loss of leave limited to £95 (that's in the practice direction) at PD27 7.3(1) but the actual expenses themselves are not so limited, precisely because the PD states for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness (i.e. the expenses are a separate cost - for which there is not a prescribed limit).


In theory the DJ could choose to disallow the O/P husband lay advocate costs as he didn't strictly need to be there, but I would consider that a little unfair. Certainly others should be getting not only the costs at £95 per attendee, but all expenses on top of that. Subsistence (food/coffee) can be an uphill struggle, but train fares, reasonable taxis and parking are, inmho, fair game - provided this is properly argued.


Notes
Since there is no limit on expenses, in theory a £200 train fare or a flight could be recoverable. That said, I have seen only one post on here where that sort of recovery for expenses was attempted and the Defendant was told he should have applied to move the hearing closer. The only response to that point might be where the costs of moving ongoing proceedings would cost more in terms of court time/resources than the costs claimed (i.e. an overriding objectives argument). Naturally, the position might well have been different if, for example, Defendant A had a mate B (his witness) who lived in Scotland and B was willing and able to travel to say Brighton for the hearing. Then I'd expect to get those costs in full.