Gladstones court claim received - help please

System

Have you had a new date yet?

kgirl123

Letter came through the post late last week - 20th December in High Wycombe this time

Coupon-mad

Does it give either party the right to file shiny new WS?

Can you show us what the Court letter actually says, word for word (or a scan?) as we need to know what you need to do.

kgirl123

No mention of any new documents to be submitted, letter attached here:
https://ibb.co/h1hztV
https://ibb.co/g59etV

IamD3

I’m new to this site anyone know how to post a thread probably very easy but Im in a similar situation to above and would like the help of those involved in this thread...yes I have read the newbies section also

Quentin

Use a laptop or PC

Go back to the forum index

Look for the New thread button near top of the page

kgirl123

Court hearing took place today and I WON!! Expenses awarded.

Firstly I'd like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone who contributed and helped, and particularly bargepole for kindly offering his help.

Rundown:
Arrived in court at 9.30am for a 10am hearing, David Blake (from PPM) arrived at 9.50 and the case started promptly. The case was heard by DDJ Simpson at High Wycombe and was wrapped up in about 50mins.
The main argument taken was around signage and whether it a) formed a contract, and b) was adequate. The judge carefully heard both sides of the argument. Claimant's argument was that there is sufficient signage within the cul-de-sac, the signs clearly inform the driver of the £100 penalty (albeit in small print), the signs are regularly audited by DVLA and IPC, and so the ticket was valid. Defence to that was that the signage is high up and difficult to read for a driver, especially at night, it's not displayed directly by the visitor bays, rather just plotted around the site, the £100 fee isn't prominent, there is no offer to park so no contact can be formed, the sign doesn't clearly highlight which spaces permits apply to - here the point of PPM admitting in their 2nd WS that spaces 1-6 were not covered by them was brought up (whilst the copy of their contract states they manage spaces 1-12), at which point David Blake admitted he wasn't even aware a 2nd WS was submitted. The judge asked various questions to fully understand how the parking site is set up, where the entrance is, how the driver would see the signs, and where it is outlined that spaces 1-6 are not covered (answer: nowhere).

The conclusion was that the case was being judged on whether a) a contract was formed, and b) signs were adequate. The judge concluded that yes a contract could be formed based on the wording of the signs, but he feels signs were inadequate, explaining that because the signs were not directly above or next to the visitor bays it didn't make it clear to visitors who wouldn't be expected to be familiar with the site and any bay restrictions. He would expect residents in the allocated bays next to the visitor bays would have permits anyway so the sign doesn't really apply to them (he also noted that residents shouldn't need permits to park outside their property but he 'won't go into that') and therefore the signs should have been placed with visitors in mind. On that basis, the case was dismissed.
David Blake disagreed with the judgement, and asked for the right to appeal, which was refused by the judge. He has said he will appeal the judge's decision with the regional judge (if I remember correctly).

Costs were awarded (£112.50 total) and 28 days given to pay (extended from 21 days due to Christmas). Costs from the previous hearing unfortunately weren't reserved, which is my fault for not asking.

Umkomaas

the signs are regularly audited by DVLA

Was that under oath?

Whether or not, if you're feeling up for this, time for a Freedom of Information Request to the DVLA asking for the dates they have conducted such audits of the signage at this particular site, and the results of such audits.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

Great win by the way. :T

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

Was that under oath?

Whether or not, if you're feeling up for this, time for a Freedom of Information Request to the DVLA asking for the dates they have conducted such audits of the signage at this particular site, and the results of such audits.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

Great win by the way. :T

The Judge said that whether they had been audited by the DVLA, and/or the IPC, was irrelevant.

He had to decide whether the signs clearly brought to the attention of motorists, the consequences of parking without a permit.

They were high up on poles, full of densely-packed text, and didn't prominently feature the £100 charge, unlike the sign in the Beavis case.

He therefore concluded that the terms had not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the Defendant, and so she could not be bound by them.

Umkomaas

My point was whether there was veracity in the statement that the DVLA had actually audited the signage, and if not, whether the DVLA (with an appropriate expose) would be content that a PPC was (inappropriately) praying them in aid in order to influence a Judge in their own favour.

That's about it.