County Court Claim Regarding Parking Tickets

nosferatu1001

Anyone with DOV cover could have driven your vehicle. Also you’re not denying who drove, just not confirming it and making them prove it. Entirely different.

Coupon-mad

I could have been driving your car with your consent, and so could anyone you know with fully comp insurance that covers 'any other vehicle'.

SamSteel89

Hi guys,

So I have an update for this case...I have received a letter from the court stating the judge has decided I (the defendant) have 'no real prospect of success ' and the caae will now be a preliminary hearing to enable the claim to be disposed of....the judge is apparently one who settles cases for Severe regilarly and hasn't even asked me to produce a witness statement. Any advice or am I one of the 0.1% that will lose this case?

KeithP

Does that letter not give you seven days to object to that order?

Can you show us a redacted picture of that letter?
Upload it to somewhere like tinypic and post a link here.

SamSteel89

I'm not very computer savvy so I'm afraid I have no idea how to do that. I can however quote it's contents as it is very brief:

'Deputy district judge _____ has directed that the matter be set down for a preliminary hearing to enable the claim to be disposed of as there is no real prospect of success by the defendant.

TAKE NOTICE that the hearing will take place on ____'

After that it just mentions I should allow 10 minutes for the hearing and that's pretty much it.

Coupon-mad

Which court and Judge?

Also the sign I parked under didn't say 'permit holder', it said 'visitors parking only' and nothing else. I have photographic evidence of this and that's basically my defence, the parking spaces do not clearly suggest they are for permit holders

Then you do have a defence. You were an authorised visitor & did not contravene the sign.

Please show us what you put in your defence exactly?

[Deleted User]

unfortunately my defence essentially consisted of 3 short bullet points as I did not realise this was supposed to be in depth.

Therein lies the problem. Sounds like court discretion under CPR 3 and the DJ is taking the view you can't possibly be able to defend it.

The CPR rules on case management contain the following direction (and explanation)

The Claim will be listed for a disposal hearing at which the judge will consider the papers and hear submissions from the parties
If liability (e.g. for an accident) is not disputed and if deciding the amount of compensation looks to be straightforward, the judge may decide not to allocate the claim to a track for trial but, instead, fix a short disposal hearing. At such a hearing, the judge will normally use written evidence only, though the parties may assist him with brief submissions.
Other directions may be given

I don't think you're dead yet, but you may want to try and get a direction for both proper detailed particulars and a new defence to be filed. 10 minutes isn't a long hearing.

If i had the cash I'd do an application to set aside the order (must be done within 7 days). If that isn't an option you could try lodging a witness statement expressing unfamiliarity with procedures and exhibiting a new (detailed) defence.

SamSteel89

The judge is District Judge Jolley and the hearing will be held at the County Court of Bournemouth.

The obvious sign in front of the parking space only states 'visitor parking' but on a different wall, a less obvious sign with the permit requirements has been placed (which I have photographed).

Unfortunately I have no idea how to log back into the moneyclaim website to retrieve my original defence, but like I said before it was very weak and only had 3 bullet points I believe.

I don't feel as though spending any money on this defence will be worthwhile at this stage, the £250 they want from me is already going to cripple me. I think my next step will be to write a detailed witness statement and hope for the best. Do I just bring the witness statement and evidence to the hearing or do I need to submit it beforehand? And do I need to message the parking contractors for detailed particulars?

Thanks

[Deleted User]

Submit any papers beforehand and send to claimant no less than 7 days before.

*I have no idea whether this will work* but I would be inclined if it were me to treat this like a set aside with a detailed statement (see those threads). You need to convince a time pressed DJ that the case is defensible.

No one will have time to read any documents in any detail in a 10 minute hearing. That's less than 5 mins per party, after all (assuming you both turn up for it - and the PPC may not).

Coupon-mad

I think a WS is a good idea too, as per the set aside threads where they too get a short hearing.

DO NOT file or bring the photo of the sign on the wall with terms on it! FORGET THAT ONE.

ONLY file the one saying 'visitors parking only' and point out in your WS that it does not mention permits in those bays, no does it mention any contractual sum of money purporting to be a parking charge.

File PACE v Lengyel, as evidence, to try to force the DJ to actually read a PROPER decision:

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

It's a transcript in one of the links there, and there's a blog explaining it here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

And state that the maximum sum that the Claimant could claim is the sum on the sign, and there is no sum stated on the vistor parking sign, and no signs, no caveat, no contract.

Even if the Court is minded to say that the second sign elsewhere on a wall applies, that means the contractual sum remains at the £100 stated there. Not double that and add £50!

Parking firms not only cannot claim for damages (as confirmed in Beavis, because they are not in possession of the land) but it was also held by the Supreme Court that a parking charge (£85 in Beavis) is already significantly inflated to include significant profit over and above the low costs of a parking enforcement model.

There are no damages and these cannot be added, or this would constitute double recovery and in any case, damages are only possible for a landowner to claim, under the tort of trespass (PACE v Lengyel confirms).

Fight to distinguish your case from Beavis!

Sounds like this Judge wants to deal with all parking charge cases as if Beavis applies carte blanche.

Draw the distinctions, show that this Claimant not only does not have clear signs (unlike in Beavis) but also has no legitimate interest or commercial justification excuse (the main reason that PE got away with disengaging the penalty rule, which is always potentially engaged in parking charge claims). In Beavis it was said that every case must be fact specific and what must be considered in every case is the 'legitimate interest' (or not) and the prominence of the terms & charge on clear signage, otherwise a parking charge falls foul of Lord Dunedin's penalty rules, which still apply.

You MUST have mentioned signs in your 3 bullet points? So build on that with a decent WS & evidence.