Defence for court action

Undisputed3001

I had another read of the attachments. Their contract to manage the car park ran out a day before the PCN was issued.

I think that's the first thing I shall point out.

Edit: there is the termination clause that states it continues to remain in force if its not terminated.

Can you have open ended contracts? Is it not customary to sign extensions to contracts?

But the contract also says at least 4 pictures will be taken of the offending vehicle. I can only see two. Are they not in breach of their contract?

Undisputed3001

WE WON!!!!!!!!!

Coupon-mad thank you so much for your help! And everybody else that helped - thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I'll give a full update later.

I thought the judge was about to rip my husband a new one as he challenged based on Right of Audience. I think the Judge saw it as an ambush

But then we had nothing to say. We literally sat back and watched the Claimant hang themselves. The Judge tore him a new one before dismissing the case. All that prep that we did, none of it was used.

I'll give a full update later.

System

Huddersfield (as it is their usual one)?

Costs as suggested at #2

nosferatu1001

Welld one!
Did you get your costs?

Undisputed3001

We did get our costs

Undisputed3001

Here's a summary of today's events.

This was our first time ever in court, so hubby and I were naturally nervous. The court was busy, and we arrived in good time. I was looking out for the Gladstone rep, and eventually heard someone at reception state they were here for the HX Parking case. Young man, well suited, who then sat down infront of us, pulled out both their WS and started making notes. Bit late for that I thought.

Hubby had read the night before about Right Of Audience and we decided to submit the document from the Bar Council to the Clerk as a prelim. Don't think we should have done that as it didn't go down too well with the DJ.

About 45 mins later we were called to the Chambers of DJ. She didn't say it, but it was apparent she took a dim view of us submitting the ROA, which she had to consider. I think she was viewing it as an ambush of the Claimant. She read the document supplied, questioned the Claimant (he failed the test of the ROA), but DJ ruled that it didn't apply in a small claims court. Then she looked at hubby (who was being my lay rep) and said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and at that point I thought she was going to throw hubby out! Fortunately she said that hubby could stay as a lay rep.

She then proceeded to describe how the session would run, and that the Claimant's rep would go first, and that she had to ask some questions to satisfy some statute requirements which were puzzling her from the Claimant's WS. The Claimant started, and their argument was so weak, I could have driven a truck through it. He essentially quoted some law from their WS, pointed out at one sign that said 10 mins, and finished with "this is an open and shut case".

DJ then asked him to point out on their diagram where the signs were. Both the Claimant and us had colour images of the diagram, but they had supplied DJ with a B&W image, and from the tone of her voice you could tell she was not impressed. We ended up giving our copy to her, and then she just kept asking the Claimant to point out which sign was located where on the diagram. Claimant had no idea as there was no correlation between the images and location. In the end, he ended up guessing which was apparent, at which point hubby couldn't contain himself any longer and said "ma'am", but the DJ told him to write his point down and raise it later.

At this point I couldn't wait for us to have our say because I was sure we were going to tear the Claimant's WS to bits.

DJ then moved onto some statute law that was required on the letters they had sent. She said that it wasn't something new to the Claimaint's company, and that several cases represented by the Claimant's company had failed because of this statute

The statute was this: Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I'm really sorry, but I couldn't follow the exact argument, but it was around sections 8 and 9. All that I can say is that the Claimant squirmed for a long time (it was apparent he knew they had screwed up, although he wasn't admitting it - just meant he squirmed for longer).

That process took up most of the hearing. It really was one of those situations where you knew what was coming, and the Claimant just had to soak it up. Lamb to the slaughter comes to mind. Then DJ turned to us, summarised, and told us she'd found for us.

What I would say to someone doing this for the first time:

1. Be well prepared and if you're going to argue something, make sure you know it inside out, not like us with the ROA
2. Chances are the Claimaint rep isn't going to be well prepared. You want to come prepared. We basically wrote out what we were going to say in court, and would have read that word for word.
3.The setting is formal, but relaxed.
4. You're the one in the right - prove it to the DJ.
5. Make sure you submit EVERYTHING you are going to rely on, no matter how insignificant. I got the impression that if you didn't submit it, you couldn't use it.

We were prepared to shake the Claimant's hand - at the end of the day he was doing a job. But he was so peeved he just went as quickly as he could.

Forgot to add, I'm now drafting a letter to my MP about this cowboy business

System

DJ then moved onto some statute law that was required on the letters they had sent. She said that it wasn't something new to the Claimaint's company, and that several cases represented by the Claimant's company had failed because of this statute

Judges have memories - who would have thought it. Seems to be something that Gladstones are happy to ignore and have judges tear new ones for the poor lay reps.

What I would say to someone doing this for the first time:

1. Be well prepared and if you're going to argue something, make sure you know it inside out, not like us with the ROA
2. Chances are the Claimaint rep isn't going to be well prepared. You want to come prepared. We basically wrote out what we were going to say in court, and would have read that word for word.
3.The setting is formal, but relaxed.
4. You're the one in the right - prove it to the DJ.
5. Make sure you submit EVERYTHING you are going to rely on, no matter how insignificant. I got the impression that if you didn't submit it, you couldn't use it.

Great summary but you forgot to add #6 - take your costs and proof too.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, did you get lay rep costs as well?
The lay rep had explicit allowance to be there, but the judge CAN allow someone who doesnt have ROA in. Its their discretion.

Undisputed3001

No, we didn't get lay costs. Forgot about that

luverlyjubbly

Good news on the win - another one bites....

I won recently there (assume it was Huddersfield), but only just. My DJ appeared to assume it was for me to prove the Claimant wrong and made some alarming statements (or I thought so):
(1) Lack of POFA compliance by the claimant was not relevant as not required, did I have any compelling reason why the Claimant should use it?
(2) Signs - they are there, it's up to the driver to seek them out, you can't go around eyes down (implying signs are deliberately ignored rather than being genuinely inconspicuous)
(3) Transfer of Liability to keeper (I wasn't the driver), the Nick Jennings case was a higher court therefore the keeper is liable - end of.

In addition, the DJ allowed the Nick Jennings case/appeal to be brought in despite not being mentioned previously in any paperwork. I mentioned the word 'ambush' and the DJ jumped down my throat - it's publicly available info, you should be aware of it!!

I have met a lady DJ at Huddersfield (DJ Heels?) and got the impression she would be likely to give a parking company a hard time if you came prepared with a decent argument as you obviously did.