Court Report - Staines - PPCs 0, Motorists 3

bargepole

I joined the team from Ashford Parking Group for three cases at Staines on Wednesday, to sit in on two, and Lay Rep for one.

First Case

D3GF4P9D Private Parking Solutions London -v- Mrs A, before DJ Hammond

Mr Kennard turned up to represent the Claimant, Stuart Wolf as lay rep for Defendant. The DJ started by saying the whole case turned on the fact that a ticket had been purchased, and he wasn’t going to delve into any other arguments. The ticket had been placed face down on the dashboard, so the PPC were entitled to issue the PCN. However, when they were shown the evidence, and proof of purchase of the ticket, they could not penalise the driver – the Beavis case made it clear that a charge which would otherwise be a penalty, could be upheld if it acted as a deterrent against breach. That did not apply here, as there was nothing to deter. But, since the defendant did not engage with the PPC until after the Claim had been filed, he thought it fair that the Claimant should recover their fixed costs. Claim dismissed, but Defendant must pay £25 filing fee + £25 hearing fee + £50 solicitor fee.

Second Case

D3GF2P0D Private Parking Solutions London -v- Mr B, before DJ Hammond

Mr Gajewski (PPS Director) for the Claimant, Defendant unrepresented.

We knew nothing about this, until we saw it on the Courtserve list the night before. He had engaged some company to prepare his defence (not one I’ve heard of), and it essentially rested on the fact that he, as keeper had not been driving, and his wife had made an appeal as driver in her name. It was also another instance of a ticket displayed face down. The DJ laid into Mr Gajewski, saying that he hadn’t provided the Court with a Notice of Acting, and that the attempt to file a WS had been done by email only, and the Court’s email server had rejected it because the file was too large. He dismissed the Claim for the same reasons as above, but did criticise the Defendant for not completing the Transfer of Liability form, rather than relying on his wife’s emailed appeal. No order as to costs.

That now makes 21 straight losses in court for PPS.

Third Case

D3GF0G0M UK Car Park Management -v- Ms E, before DJ Bell

Mr Kennard was back from lunch for this one, and I was Lay Rep for the Defendant.

The Defendant was aware that the hearing fee hadn’t been paid, and no WS had been served by the Claimant. She had phoned the Court office the day before, and they said it may get struck out. But when it appeared in the daily listings, we thought it best to turn up. I spoke to Mr Kennard beforehand, and his instructions were that Gladstones hadn’t received the Notice of Hearing, and didn’t know it was listed until they saw the listings last night. He said he would seek an adjournment, I said we would seek a dismissal and costs for the Defendant. But when we got into Court, the DJ said that it had already been struck out, due to non-payment of the hearing fee, and he couldn’t understand why the Court office didn’t communicate that information to the parties. I made a submission that, when the Defendant had filed and served her WS, which she could prove was emailed to Gladstones on 2 December, they should surely have realised that a hearing date was imminent, and contacted the Court to pay the hearing fee and file a WS. The Judge wouldn’t go with my unreasonable conduct argument, but did award Ms E her witness costs amounting to £96.80.

So in summary, yet another catalogue of Gladstones inefficiency.

The_Deep

I would hardly class Mrs A's case as a win. She had to pay £100 because she placed her ticket face down.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I would hardly class Mrs A's case as a win. She had to pay £100 because she placed her ticket face down.

It was a 'win' in the sense that the claim was for nearly £300, and that was dismissed.

The Judge took the view that, had she provided PPS with the evidence of the paid ticket at a much earlier stage, they may well have cancelled the charge, and the court claim and hearing would have been unnecessary.

It shows how wrong the 'ignore' advice can turn out to be. Hers was a pyrrhic victory.

Handbags-at-dawn

It's a hugely important win.

PPCs are constantly mis-applying Beavis by claiming it says £100 is a generally acceptable charge. In this case the judge was prepared to look beyond what the PPC shoved under his nose. So even though not binding, it highlights how Beavis actually requires careful reading. Other judges are more likely to sit up and take notice of what a brother judge has said than what a litigant in person is trying to tell him.

beamerguy

So "Pinky and Perky" AKA Davies and Hurley
still in fantasy land:rotfl:

fisherjim

The_Deep wrote: »

I would hardly class Mrs A's case as a win. She had to pay £100 because she placed her ticket face down.

No not exactly a win, and the PPC ended up net neutral in cash terms, but the judge basically "fined" her for not playing the PPC's game of appeal and get rejected!

Fruitcake

I think the penalty aspect should be highlighted to posters with tickets that have turned over or blown off the dashboard after leaving the vehicle.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake wrote: »

I think the penalty aspect should be highlighted to posters with tickets that have turned over or blown off the dashboard after leaving the vehicle.

And the court cases referenced in any POPLA appeal - and might be worth a shot at some relevant IAS appeal(s) to flush them out!

Johno100

Fruitcake wrote: »

I think the penalty aspect should be highlighted to posters with tickets that have turned over or blown off the dashboard after leaving the vehicle.

Any reasonable person would add inputting a wrong letter/number into a machine. They get their money and there is no breach to deter - so it's a penalty.

Castle

bargepole wrote: »

Second Case

D3GF2P0D Private Parking Solutions London -v- Mr B, before DJ Hammond

.... He dismissed the Claim for the same reasons as above, but did criticise the Defendant for not completing the Transfer of Liability form, rather than relying on his wife’s emailed appeal. No order as to costs.

There's no requirement under POFA for the, (or any), form to be completed; and that by doing so, it could infer that the RK accepts that a liability exists.

Quentin

bargepole wrote: »

It shows how wrong the 'ignore' advice can turn out to be. Hers was a pyrrhic victory.

Here we tell everyone NOT to ignore a LBCCA or Court correspondence.