Scs law lbc by ukpc

Coupon-mad

Parkingfines wrote: »

I am not sure from reading this you have any grounds for appeal though ( only from what u have reported)

I reckon he/she does, as the Judge:

- failed to consider the contract,
- or fairness,
- and erred by considering that a bumper overhanging a DYL is somehow a contravention and not 'de minimis'
- and erred by not considering the proper amount which is the sum on the NTK, not added damages because she has 'seen it all before'.

Even if 5 PCNs were to be upheld, that's not over £800. Sums cannot be added willy nilly.

The PCNs were only £50 or £60 each!

Honey-Dee

Re-read my replies. I already told you that, and named one...the firm that handled the Jopson appeal might be interested in doing this for you for little or no fee, who knows.

Thanks I will contact them.

Coupon-mad

Worth a half hour chat with them (usually free) to see if they think you have a case.

Parkingfines

I wish you luck on this one. But you need to act quick..You have 21 days to lodge an appeal.

Coupon-mad

I hope the solicitors can assist her, that would be ideal, with over £800 in play.

beamerguy

The Judge did not understand the fake £60 add on ???

Why is it that nurses keep getting the backlash whilst doing their job saving lives

Rupert Williams of UKPC is the devil in disguise and let's hope he realises that his own kids rely on nurses ..... We feel very sorry for Mrs Williams who is married to a monster

Parkingfines

The question that has to be answered is did the did the judge make a mistake in law. That IMAO is all that needs to be considered

Coupon-mad

Yep, so I think the solicitors who helped Ms Jopson would be perfect to look at that. Luckily, this is the same court area and the OP can probably get a free half hour's advice on the possibility of appeal, from a firm who has appealed a private parking case before.

A rare opportunity to get proper advice for this OP before she parts with money!

Not many solicitors have the knowledge that firm displayed.

System

Before you go off and spend a fortune on an appeal, it may be useful to compare the text of the signs to the guidance on "fairness"

If a term is of the type listed in Part 1 of Schedule 2 ("Grey" list) , it can be assessed for fairness. Other terms in a consumer contract can be assessed for fairness except to the extent that:

a) they specify the main subject matter of the contract (usually the goods, services or digital content being purchased); or

b) the assessment is of the appropriateness (usually the level) of the price payable under the contract compared with what is supplied under it.

However, if such price or subject matter terms are not transparent and prominent ( e.g. if they are in the small print) they are assessable for fairness.

Then, in order to determine whether it is assessable for fairness, the court will first consider whether a price or subject matter term is transparent and prominent. If such a term is not transparent and prominent (e.g. if it is in the 'small print'), it is assessable for fairness. If the term is transparent and prominent, it is exempt from assessment for fairness.

So it all comes down to the clarity of the terms. However as there were a number of tickets, it cannot be argued the signs were "unfair".

IMHO you're on a loser on this one.

Edit: This is a drive-by posting as I get "fairness" all the time now. Fairness is fairly clear if you drill down.

Honey-Dee

IMHO you're on a loser on this one.

You don't think I should appeal? Good morning.