PCN to keeper questions

Lauybob

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Gladstones sometimes say their client might not turn up and that if no rep is appointed to the hearing, the court should consider their papers in their absence (which is OK and gives YOU the floor!).

I think you don't need to 'ask the court' as such; this is all about exposing the holes in the evidence.

Get there half an hour early to get through security, and take a costs schedule, and a wage slip to prove your loss of leave/salary, and also claim your travel and parking.

Great thanks.


Will post back whatever the outcome to update!


Hopefully it all goes well.

Lauybob

Sorry to say but I lost the case guys.

Judge was Sian Parry. Had a feeling she had already made up her mind before I got in there.

Short summary:
She accepted the late submission of the initial WS by the claimant saying it was only a few days late. She also accepted the last minute 'supplemental' WS by the claimant.

About presumption that I was the keeper, she agreed with the claimant that it was reasonable to assume that I was the keeper because I own the car and it was parked at the flat I lived at. She dismissed Henry Greenslades statement regarding keeper liability saying she said it was right of the claimant to assume that I was the driver (as the keeper) because I refused to give over the name of the person who was driving. She asked why I refused to which I said I shouldn't help them nor do I have to.

She said he required no proof and that assuming and thus pursuing me as the driver 'made sense' in this case.

In terms of POFA, she said that had been met and they could pursue me as the driver (for reasons above). She stated that the parking signage was enough to be a contract. I pointed her toward my point 37

[FONT=&quot]The signage put up has only given permission to park to 'permit holders only in allocated bays'. The sign of this sort makes no contractual consideration to a driver. If parking, stopping or waiting is forbidden, you cannot contract with a driver to do exactly what the restriction forbids. As stated above, a contract must have 3 elements, offer, then consideration then acceptance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]She said that the statement says about parking not about a parked vehicle (which surely is the same thing?). At this point I knew she already had made up her mind.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In terms of primacy of contract, she basically ignored all of it and said that the Claimant has not taken away a free right to park. She said the right to park is still there albeit I had to display a permit. I argued that it was unreasonble, pointing to DDJ Skelly, but she totally rebuked that and said thats just his opinion and the text said 'override the grant of free resident/visitor parking' which is different to this as she said the parking in my bay was still free (again albeit with a permit). She said the Jopson case is totally different and that the claimant hadn't overridden my right to park, only that I now had to show a permit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I pointed about the lease about 'subject to any reasonable regulation'. She said she believes it is reasonable in this case. She dismissed my notion about taking away something which i already had the right to, because she said the right hasn't been taken away, I just had to show a permit (which she said is perfectly reasonable) to continue it being free. She also said that there must have been over 75% acceptance because no one complained about it to the MA or to the PPC.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I can't remember too much else exactly, but thats the gist of it.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If anyone has got any questions, feel free to ask, it might be easier for me to remember that way.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Other than that, i don't think I was ever going to win that case with the particular Judge, no matter what I said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thanks anyway to everyone for their help, obviously not the outcome I or we all wanted but life goes on.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Wow what a terrible Judge, so sorry you got her. Most of that decision is diabolical.

Cardiff court (where the Nurses case was also lost and made worse due to a rep's reported arrogance & aggression).

Lauybob

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow what a terrible Judge, so sorry you got her. Most of that decision is diabolical.

Cardiff court (where the Nurses case was also lost and made worse due to a rep's reported arrogance & aggression).

She had already made her mind up. Her line of questioning toward me was only to help the claimant. Questions like would you be annoyed if someone else parked in your space and what would I do about it? Basically justifying them operating the way the do. Then proceeding to say the PPC are merely doing their job and don’t deserve the bad rep they get in the media.

So definitely no chance in that but I think it makes it a bit easier to swallow to know there’s not much more I could I done.

Thanks again for the help. Very much appreciated

nosferatu1001

You should have responded that someone else parking in your space would mean
1) The claimant getting money, but not you
2) You would have to ark in another bay, and the claimant would then charge you for doing so

The claimant offered nothing of value, but reduced it

I would appeal, personally. She made an error - you cannot claim the claimant does not need to prove their case, which she did! Be aware you would need the transcript, which MUST be padi for by you and will be costly.

Lauybob

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You should have responded that someone else parking in your space would mean
1) The claimant getting money, but not you
2) You would have to ark in another bay, and the claimant would then charge you for doing so

The claimant offered nothing of value, but reduced it

I would appeal, personally. She made an error - you cannot claim the claimant does not need to prove their case, which she did! Be aware you would need the transcript, which MUST be padi for by you and will be costly.

She meant before the PPC started enforcement, what would I have done. The point she was trying to make was that I would want a PPC in that case, which I said I didn’t because I have a bollard in place to prevent anyone parking there anyway.

She asked if I had a problem with people parking in my bay to which I said no as I have a bollard anyway. The claimant said that other people have had problems to which I asked where the proof was. She said she was sure other people would have had the problem without needing proof. She also agreed with the claimant that there was 75% acceptance because no one returned the permit to the PPC! Basically no proof needed, she just agreed with it from her point of view.

She asked if the bollard needed a key, I said yes. She said what difference is having a key to having a permit? She said it’s the same thing! You still need a key in the same way you need a permit to park! Except one charges £100 parking fine if you forgot it whereas the other just means you can’t park there.!

Yeah she basically didn’t ask the claimant to prove their case, moreso for me to prove my defence. She just took the claimants witness statement and word for it without poking holes in his evidence. Every time I countered with a reason like about the “reasonable regulation” she said it was reasonable from her point of view despite me talking about taking over my right to park and about DDJ Skelly (which was his opinion only).

Coupon-mad

She also agreed with the claimant that there was 75% acceptance because no one returned the permit to the PPC!

Wow. That is a DISGRACE. What a dreadful Judge. What an embarrassment that ANYONE can hold those warped views.

And she let them submit an extra WS just days before the hearing and lapped that up, too.

Had you thought about appealing? She deserves an embarrassing appeal against her or she will do this to everyone.

You have to show she erred in law and it seems she did, by dismissing a defence about the L&T Act 75% consensus being needed BY LAW by the landowner, which is not met by saying: ''so no-one returned their permits (to a third party non-landowner, who didn't tell them they had the option)''.

The bad point though, is this is Cardiff, where consumer chances v PPCs were trodden into the mud by the publicly reported issue (from the mouth of another Cardiff Judge in the court transcript linked on this very forum by bargepole) about the reported shameful and aggressive conduct of a 'rep', in a case where the Court appeared already leaning heavily towards propping up the PPC - and were helped on their way.

Lauybob

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow. That is a DISGRACE. What a dreadful Judge. What an embarrassment that ANYONE can hold those warped views.

And she let them submit an extra WS just days before the hearing and lapped that up, too.

Had you thought about appealing? She deserves an embarrassing appeal against her or she will do this to everyone.

You have to show she erred in law and it seems she did, by dismissing a defence about the L&T Act 75% consensus being needed BY LAW by the landowner, which is not met by saying: ''so no-one returned their permits (to a third party non-landowner, who didn't tell them they had the option)''.

The bad point though, is this is Cardiff, where consumer chances v PPCs were trodden into the mud by the publicly reported issue (from the mouth of another Cardiff Judge in the court transcript linked on this very forum by bargepole) about the reported shameful and aggressive conduct of a 'rep', in a case where the Court appeared already leaning heavily towards propping up the PPC - and were helped on their way.

With regards to the 75%, apparently no one returned the permits so there was not more than 10% rejection either. Like you said, it’s not like they gave us the option to return it. The claimant told the judge that we could easily have not accepted the terms by returning them the permit and telling them we don’t want our space managed. That is total BS as they never once said we could do that, nor would they actually do that in reality. However the judge took their word for it without proof, agreeing that I could easily have done that.

Also the parking fine occurred about a month or 2 after they started enforcement. She asked why I hadn’t had a ticket before then. The point she was making was that she said I must have been showing the permit previously as i couldn’t have parked anywhere else. I told her there are spaces around the area to park. She refused to believe that I could find a space to park at 8pm in the evening in a busy area. And when I explained to her that I could, she said it must be a long way away to which I replied that it was probably only 20m further. She refused to believe any of that and just concluded that I must have been parking in that space with a permit previously (basically making her own assumptions without actual proof; literally just going by what and how she thought the situation went down from what she can tell)

No I haven’t thought about appealing and most likely won’t be. Just want this over with if I’m being honest and it doesn’t give me too much confidence after how it went down with that judge and the track record in Cardiff recently. Add in the fact that she rebuked most of my points that I thought were valid (like signage does not mean contract but she said it did, and the regulation to punish the owner of the space unreasonable but again she thought it was - the list goes on).

nosferatu1001

Sending out permits is NOT a consultation
Thats a complete crock.

DoaM

If this could be appealed (and won) would that provide more weight for other residential claims? (i.e. is a County Court appeal any more persuasive for County Court claims than other non-appeal County Court results?)

I appreciate that OP probably just wants this done and dusted, but if an appeal would be worthwhile I'd imagine the costs of doing so could be crowd-funded.