UK Car Park Management try very hard to enable Shedule 4.

bergkamp

Claim dismissed....:)

We won ! :beer:

Coupon-mad

Woohoo! ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Well done!!

Court report please, when you & the D have come down off the ceiling, bergkamp!

bergkamp

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Woohoo! ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Well done!!

Court report please, when you & the D have come down off the ceiling, bergkamp!

Will do... It was a pretty big ceiling too! Proper big Court room with the Judge on high!

Coupon-mad

Which court is that? Manchester?

BrownTrout

Good stuff

bergkamp

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Which court is that? Manchester?

As it was my first time it was big... I was expecting a small room .

Staines County Court.

beamerguy

bergkamp wrote: »

Claim dismissed....:)

We won ! :beer:

Well done :beer:

Clearly the penny has not dropped with CPM about Gladstones..
Many more whoopings projected

The penalty paid for being in a scam organisation

bergkamp

E8GF82GR

UKCPM LTD
vs
Defendant and Lay Rep bergkamp

District Judge King
at
Staines County Court

Met Defendant in the car park and proceeded through security to the waiting area. 1 hour early with 3 other people in waiting room. Sat down,no nerves. Discussed with D what I was intending to say, and waited for the usher to see us.

Usher saw others that were waiting,then came to us. He asked if we had our Defence bundle and the Claimants Witness Statements ?

'Yes I do', I replied.

'Good.' says the usher.... 'Because we don't!'.

Nerves kicked in a little....

( I had hand delivered the defence bundle to the very same Court a month previous... )

The Usher then proceeded to photocopy my copy of the claimant Witness Statement (27pgs) and asked if the Judge could use my Defence bundle folder as he was not photocopying that lot!

I have a copy on my phone so agreed. He said the Judge will now have to take some time to read both.

I told the Usher I was the D's Lay Rep and handed him the Lay Representatives Rights of Audience Order

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

that I'd printed out.

He stated;

' You want to be a Mckenzie Friend then?'

' No, Lay Rep... As per the Order I have handed to you.' I informed him again.

He seemed to think they were the same thing but never mentioned it again.

Now as the Usher left, one of the other occupants of the waiting room came over and said he was representing UKCPM in our case.

Bu**er I thought! Had the D and myself said anything that he had heard and may hinder our chances...

Well no, as everything we talked about is in black and white in front of him anyway.

He wanted to know who the D was and who I was, but I made him give his name first;

' Mr Smith '

And who he worked for;

' Elm legal '.

He complimented me on our defence bundle, which he had on his ipad along with the claimant Witness Statement.

Small talk about how the Court system lose things all the time and is in chaos apparently ,then he sat over the other side of the waiting room.

As we were waiting for over an hour, we engaged in some conversation, which led to some disagreement.

He didn't know obviously, that I knew exactly what I was talking about.

He started telling me that a Supreme Court decision meant that a contract is formed by signs put up by parking companies...

' Beavis ' I interrupted him . 'What's that got to do with Keeper liability and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012?

He went on about common law and Statute working together (?)and one being after the other...

* 5 minute discussion *

' We'll leave it for the Judge ' I said.

' 50/50 these cases. Depends on how the Judge interprets the evidence.' He ended.

' Well the law is on our side .' Was my response...


The Usher finally came and showed us to Court room 5.

I wasn't expecting a ' proper ' Court room with the Judge sitting high up in front of the rows of benches and seating. Still only the four of us, but it meant speaking much louder than is normal. Sitting down at our side of the bench, I realised that my notes were in the front of my Defence bundle folder!
And looking at my bundle on a phone was going to be a struggle...

DJ King asked Mr Smith about his right of audience and I think he said he was a Barrister.

She then asked the D if he wanted me to speak for him as Lay Rep , which he replied ' Yes '.
This was the first of two words the D spoke in Court!

Mr Smith had no problem with that as the Judge said it was the D's right.

I had to then pipe up and ask if I could get my notes from my bundle that the judge had in front of her! I wonder if this helped our case or not if she read them?

My notes were numbered bullet points relating to the Claimants WS, which I thought their Representative ( Mr Smith ) would go through and I would then have to rebut.

This wasn't what happened.

As I retrieved them, I pointed out the email print out received by the D ,with no attachment, last night.. DJ King(The Court) had not received anything either. ( Hardley surprising as they didn't have any other documentation).
She asked Mr Smith about it and he said ' Don't worry, it is just basically the Witness Statement.'
DJ King discounted it.

DJ King told Mr Smith to start.

He went straight to point 8 of our Defence Statement;

8. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read , and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

To paraphrase him;

'The Defendant comments on the size of the font so they saw the signage that is there'

I then interrupted him saying ' The D wasn't the driver!'

This got me a telling off from DJ King as 'Only one speaker at a time please. You will get your say.'

' Sorry Ma'am '. I knew not to do this but couldn't stop myself!

Mr Smith then took us to the full size A4 page in their WS which showed a close up of a sign.

The signage created a contract with the D he claimed.

He took 5 minutes umming ,erring and waffling to get to the point of the above sentence...

Onto Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Mr Smith started quoting paragraph 7... My tongue was hurting from the biting. I can't recall what he said now but knew it was the wrong paragraph.

That was it for his case.

Wow. I was slightly shocked that I knew I could trump his hand.
( Even though I have known that since seeing the NTK 1 ½ years ago!)

DJ King, ' Your turn Mr bergkamp. Where do you want to start?'.

'OK... (Deep breath) Signage then. The Claimant's close up of a sign does not show where it is. Could be anywhere.

The next page of their WS shows the site plan. Where is the signage? Nothing is marked on the plan, just an outline of the boundary.

Where is the signage marked?'

Onto Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.
(I had to then ask the DJ if I could get my extra copy of POFA out of the back of my bundle that she had. Looking at my phone was hopeless! She agreed of course.)

I pointed out that Mr Smith was quoting the wrong paragraph as that relates to a NTD, and
the correct paragraph is 9.
We then went through the wording and how there is no relevant land on the NTK, and it was 'given'
in 16 days.

I had addressed that it didn't matter what Mr Smith had claimed the signage said, if it wasn't shown to be there. I had proved Mr Smith , looking at POFA on his ipad, was confused and wrong about it.

DJ King asked if I wanted to add more. She gave me the impression that I should not.

She offered Mr Smith another say. He took the opportunity to challenge the 16 days and wording of
when a notice must be given. It took 5 minutes for him to understand the DJ's correct reading/explanation of it.
There was no proof of postage in the Claimant's WS.

The DJ asked the D to clarify if he received the NTK 16 days after the DOE.

'Yes' was his final input in the proceedings.

This was taken at face value and as no proof of postage was provided, that was when it was 'given'.

Apparently the email the night before contained POP according to Mr Smith, but that had already been discounted with his agreement. I do not believe that to be true though.

DJ King; 'Anything else either of you want to add?'

So much more I had in my bundle, but it felt like I shouldn't add any more.

'No Ma'am', from the defence.

Mr Smith added something along the lines of ' arguing the wording of POFA was just a technicality'.

DJ King called time. She was giving her Judgement straight away.

' Claim Dismissed '.

I smiled.

No fist in the air as it felt like we were going through the motions and were always going to win.

DJ King's summary lasted 10 minutes, as she went through everything that had happened in the previous hour.

We would have won on signage alone. She tore a strip out of the C's WS regarding signage.

We would have won on Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. On both points.

No relevant land on NTK. And it being delivered to RK 16 days from DOE.

DJ King then offered me a final say.

' There is a cost schedule in the back of my bundle to be updated Ma'am.' I offered.

' Yes. £95 loss of earnings, I can't allow £23 stationary and postage, mileage works out at £9.
You have parking down... ' DJ King was interrupted by Mr Smith.

' Parking is free here ' he whined .

I laughed out loud at that point!

' Indeed. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Defendant £104 within 14 days. Is that clear Mr Smith?' was DJ Kings final statement.

' Yes Ma'am' he confirmed.

He congratulated us and scuttled away.

A good day indeed.




Below is a link to a PDF of the above,bundle contents page and my notes sheets.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lut0805cf2hmf4m/AADyljT0fO2OevmjrmE9bONya?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Brilliant, bergkamp! :T

A useful link at the end there, too, for others to see.

Umkomaas

Super report, almost a transcript. Well done on your win on behalf of the D.

He stated;

' You want to be a Mckenzie Friend then?'

' No, Lay Rep... As per the Order I have handed to you.' I informed him again.

He seemed to think they were the same thing but never mentioned it again.

Whenever anyone asks about being a LR, I always recommend they Google both LR and MF to understand the clear differences in the two roles.

In one recent case the Judge would only allow the individual to be a MF (wrongly as I understand it), so knowing the differences could be important.