Six year old ticket

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

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.

Yes, when I read the below, I thought ''I bet it's him''. LOC123 might know who he is.

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.

I would appeal this one, even on the BOP, it was not you, and you said so:

I pointed out that it was at a time when 'keeper liability' didnt stand and that I didnt know who the driver was, that the car was insured for people other than myself

Even two insured drivers makes it 50/50. Three insured drivers, even less likely to be you.

If ever we see an error in law it's this type of case and that Judge is overdue a boot up the bum.

If you are thinking of appealing, don't pay. Contact the court (or wait for others to advise).

youdontsay

Yes it was Blackwood Who shot JR if thats any help? There were a lot of things said such as that I dont own the car park, the landowner does and its down to us to read everything the signs tell us regarding the contract we are entering into.
When I pointed out the Martin Cutts article and the fact that many MPs were standing against the practise, he didnt really want to know.

Coupon-mad

Think about your options over the weekend. The Judge does deserve an appeal against him and this decision is ludicrous as you appear to have said enough to make it clear on the BOP that you were not the liable party. And there is no presumption nor any applicable law that could hold you liable, pre-POFA, for the actions of another driver.

jkdd77

I agree with Coupon-mad; this case desperately needs to be appealed, and an appeal would have excellent chances of success.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

I simply do not agree that, in a case where a claimant puts forward no evidence at all to support their contention that the defendant was driving, merely a bare assertion/ suggestion, and the defendant puts forward repeated and consistent evidence, in witness statements, and in open court, made under penalty of perjury that they were definitely not driving, there are sufficient grounds for a judge to find as fact that the claimant has discharged their burden of showing that defendant was driving.

Edit (9/7/18)- Furthermore, I do not agree that, in such a case, there are valid grounds for an fair and objective judge to hold that the defendant's evidence is "dishonest" or "disingenuous". Insofar as there is any lack of certainty in the evidence put forward by the defendant, it is a natural consequence of the passage of time, caused by the PPC's cynical decision to delay bringing the claim for six years. Ironically, if the OP had been able to remember the identity of the driver, it would have been safe to name him/ her in court, since the PPC's claim against the driver would be statute-barred.

If there were sufficient grounds to decide that an RK was driving based on the bare suggestion of the claimant, there would have been no need for Parliament to introduce 'RK liability' for post October 2012 parking events.

The judge essentially found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant lied in court under penalty of perjury, and I would suggest there was insufficient evidence for a properly directed judge acting in good faith to come to that conclusion.

In this particular case, the finding of fact is especially odious and unjust because the deliberate and cynical decision of the PPC to delay bringing a claim for six years likely denied the defendant access to additional evidence (such as witnesses) that would have proven beyond all doubt that he/ she was no driving.

An appeal would not be held at Blackwood (a court notoriously biased in favour of PPCs) but rather in a different court before an circuit judge, one who would, with luck, be open-minded and impartial. The grounds for appeal would be that the decision of the lower court was wrong (c.f. Rule 52.21(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that it was unjust (3)(b) in that the judge acted inappropriately in pre-judging the case and in refusing to properly consider the evidence of the defendant.

However, the first step would be to apply to a circuit judge for leave to appeal (assuming such leave was not granted by the district judge), and it is virtually certain that the OP would need to pay both for this 'leave-to-appeal hearing', and for the transcript of the case.

Making such an application for leave to appeal would not stay the original judgment, nor prevent enforcement of the judgment if not paid.

Therefore, in making the application for leave to appeal, the OP should also request that enforcement be stayed pending the appeal hearing.

If the request for stay is denied, or is not heard before the deadline to pay, the OP may be left with no choice but to pay or risk enforcement action. However, if he/she wins his/ her appeal, as is likely, the PPC will be ordered to repay this sum.

The_Deep

Is that it, no sanction against the judge? If this were to be overturned he should, at the very least, have all subsequent decisions reviewed.

If I were in OP's shoes I would do my upmost to make life very difficult for him

thetriggerhappypwner

Not sure if this has been said before but...

If this claim is more than a year old, in this case SIX, would it not be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980?

I mean honestly, what possibility of success do they have?

nigelbb

thetriggerhappypwner wrote: »

Not sure if this has been said before but...

If this claim is more than a year old, in this case SIX, would it not be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980?

I mean honestly, what possibility of success do they have?

The claim was issued one week within the six years that are available to pursue a civil debt sodas not statute barred.