Asda Car parking ticket

taxiphil

Altarf wrote: »

My statement is entirely correct. I said, they were successful in court. They sued, the court judgement was for them i.e. they won. Your argument seems to be that since the case was not defended it is not a 'proper' win. The fact is that there are car park management companies are prepared to take people to court. Whether they win by default because people cannot be bothered submit a defence is irrelevant to them.

A judgement by default isn't a 'win' in any sense of the word. It's exactly what it says it is - a judgement by default. It can easily be overturned by the defendant - simply by saying they didn't receive the claim form and asking the court to set the judgement aside (banks do this all the time when people claim against them). The court will always grant the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

It would only be a 'win' (i.e. a binding judgement) if it went to hearing in front of a judge who then found in the claimant's favour, which clearly did not happen in any of these cases featured in the newspaper article.

Altarf wrote: »

A win (of whatever sort) = Money.

Far from it. A win = money in theory, not money in reality!

Besides the inherent weakness of a judgement by default, as mentioned above, it can be incredibly difficult and expensive for a claimant to magically turn a "win" into "money". The court doesn't automatically collect the money from the debtor.

sarahg1969

And you are, of course, assuming that the claims were issued against genuine Defendants and not acquaintances of Mr Brough.

Altarf

taxiphil wrote: »

A judgement by default isn't a 'win' in any sense of the word. It's exactly what it says it is - a judgement by default.

And this is how the vast majority of of cases in the small claims track are settled. A win by default is still a win.

taxiphil wrote: »

It can easily be overturned by the defendant - simply by saying they didn't receive the claim form and asking the court to set the judgement aside

And have any of the people sued done that?

taxiphil wrote: »

The court doesn't automatically collect the money from the debtor

Of course it doesn't, but it does make it awful lot easier to collect the money.

sarahg1969 wrote: »

And you are, of course, assuming that the claims were issued against genuine Defendants and not acquaintances of Mr Brough.

I have read the conspiracy theories posted elsewhere. I remain to be convinced.

taxiphil

Altarf wrote: »

And this is how the vast majority of of cases in the small claims track are settled. A win by default is still a win.

That's a very bold statement! You're saying the majority of claims in the County Court receive a judgement by default because the defendant didn't respond? Over 50% of all claims? Where is your source for this astonishing statistic - I'd love to see it.

I'm sorry, but a judgement by default is absolutely not a win. In the case of Masters -v- Leaver[1999]EWCA Civ 2016 it was held that a judgment in default means just that - it is a judgment obtained due to default. It does not mean that the court has agreed with what was claimed, or favours one or other case.

'Win' means 'to be successful or victorious in a contest' - by the very nature of a judgement by default there has been no contest.

Altarf wrote: »

And have any of the people sued done that?

They may well have done. But we don't know because the journalist who wrote that article didn't bother contacting any of the defendants for their side of the story.

The relevant point is that they would be within their rights to have the judgement set aside by completing a simple form.

Altarf wrote: »

I have read the conspiracy theories posted elsewhere. I remain to be convinced.

I think you're in danger of reversing the burden of proof here. Mr Brough has made these bold statements, therefore he is the one who should be convincing us about the authenticity of these judgements. But he hasn't done (and neither has the journalist). So in the absence of any evidence that these judgements were obtained against real people at real addresses, it is fair to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that these judgements may be against fictional individuals, or stooges, for the purposes of creating positive spin and propaganda.

C_Ronaldo

Why not just pay the fine and be done with it

Altarf

I think we will have to disagree.

taxiphil

Altarf wrote: »

I think we will have to disagree.

I'll agree with you and retract everything I have said if you can show me the statistic that says over 50% of all claims in the county court receive a judgement by default.

You have continually challenged others to back up their claims and statements - but you have failed to back up a single one of your statements, even when asked to do so several times.

taxiphil

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

Why not just pay the fine and be done with it

Absolutely unbelieveable. Have you actually read a single word of this thread?

Altarf

taxiphil wrote: »

I'll agree with you and retract everything I have said if you can show me the statistic that says over 50% of all claims in the county court receive a judgement by default.

You have continually challenged others to back up their claims and statements - but you have failed to back up a single one of your statements, even when asked to do so several times.

And how many cases do you think go through the County Court Bulk Centre at Northampton issued by the banks, credit card companies, etc? And how many of these cases are defended? Well the County Court Service says "These units have been set up by Her Majesty's Courts Service specifically to deal with straightforward debt collection work which, in the main, is undefended." - http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1054.htm

Statistics here if you want to read them - http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6903/6903.pdf

taxiphil

Thanks for the stats, they made interesting reading.

I think "undefended" is an umbrella term which also refers to cases where the defendant did reply but admitted the claim. I can't find an exact figure for how many judgements by default were issued, but the fact that only 237,000 defences were entered out of 1.6 million claims does back up your theory.

I'd just be genuinely surprised if more than 50% of people didn't reply to a court claim, it does seem a very high number.