Six year old ticket

waamo

It sounds like he was making it up as he went along. That's not unknown is the county court.

Coupon-mad

You might want to appeal that decision. He erred in law, you could not be held liable if you were not the driver.

[Deleted User]

If the court makes a finding of fact that the o/p is the driver, on balance of probabilities, then he most certainly can be held accountable for the contractual charges.

Not admitting being the driver may not be good enough if C's suggestion that D was driving is not displaced or the o/p not believed.

I don't think it necessarily means a judge has made an error - s/he's entitled to make a finding. It could of course be wrong and adopt a wrong premise, but I don't think it follows that it's immediately appealable.

Coupon-mad

Agree, but the OP said:

I said that I knew it wouldnt have been myself as the car park in question has such a bad reputation for chasing after people for varied reasons and slapping these high fines on them that, like most people I refuse to park there.

[Deleted User]

I agree that was his evidence. But the judge might have thought "well he would say that." That was really my point in a rather more verbose fashion!

That's the inherent difficulty with witness testimony and subjective assessments of witnesses by the court (many great minds have expended rainforests on the point).

The judgment should make clear if the court finds that the o/p was driving and why. It's hard to tell if that happened from the account, helpful though it is.

This is of course the litigation risk that never goes away even with apparently decent cases. So long as everyone is mindful of the risk of the unpredictable, then it's possible to reconcile a few odd decisions.

System

All Pre-POFA / "Keeper not driving and driver not identified" runs a risk. The risk is as Johnersh says is twofold

1. The D has left the door open for a judge to make a decision on BoP and
2. Given the sheer number of people a judge sees they do get jaundiced and sometimes think "well she would say that."

A possible solution is to opt for the standard NCND - neither confirm nor deny - and then add that on BoP it was someone else as ..... [insert the checks that have been done to support the statement.]

Courts want certainty and some evidence that the Keeper wasn't driving is better than none.

If you leave items for a judge to decide, you run the risk the decision will go against you.

youdontsay

Im just pondering how to proceed with this. What would be the procedure if I decided to appeal? And would I have the same judge? He talked about what happens in Cardiff, where he lives, quite a lot and the fact that people there are happy to have these car park agencies doing their thing there as locals get irate about visitors to the area parking in 'their' spaces.
A person in the courts mentioned that many of the judges would have thrown it out of court. I probably would have preferred not to hear that, but it was interesting observations by someone who sees the court process day in, day out!
Its the luck of the draw I suppose as to who you get to make the decision at this stage

System

He talked about what happens in Cardiff, where he lives,

So you were on the Welsh Circuit? Was this Blackwood?

Some of the Welsh courts e.g. Swansea are PPC friendly so it might explain the outcome.

Umkomaas

IIRC, there was a Swansea (?) Judge who found against a defendant, basing some of his judgment on the fact his daughter lived in a similar residential complex and had parking difficulties.

The_Deep

This is of course the litigation risk that never goes away even with apparently decent cases.

That s all very well, but when even Spreme court Judges disagree with each other, but what remedy has TMOTCO when a lone judge makes a dodgy decision?

When my claim for unreasonable behavioural costs was denied recently, (wrongly in my opinion), Bargepole told me that although I could appeal, I would need a transcript of the case, and pay a fee of £200. For the amount I was claiming, it was not worthwhile.

If I am treated thusly, what chance does a less confident person have?