told not to worry about payment and enjoy the day by the staff

harnas

Hello all,
As promised here is bit more details about the court case. Sorry for bit of delay. busy busy.

I came to court earlier and sat down in the waiting area. I did not know that i had to register for the case at the reception? (some kind of kiosk or but luckily did just before the time, whilst asking about some details of the hearing rooms) so REMEMBER to check in before the departure:) - not sure what the consequences are though.
When I was registering, the lady pointed at BWLegal advocate stating that he also is present. On that note he approached me and it went like that:
- Hello
- Hi, how are you?
- Ok thanks, I was wondering if we could have a brief chat before the hearing?
- No, I dont think so, but thanks,

And i went to take a seat in some distance thinking that i would get into the conversation if not for this forum! THANKS!
The advocate then went to some witness room, and looked like he was preparing for a case but not sure if this was for mine or not. He also looked quite nervous or... I don't know... like someone that didn't want to be there more than me...

As mentioned before, the judge was well prepared and the hearing was a form of a conversation, whilst seating, which i did not expect (I thought it would be a stand up, speech kind of a thing). It was quite relaxed tbh.

The judge presented the case in few words stating that in his understanding, I spoke to someone that told me not to pay and then I was issued the PCN. He asked if this is my main line of the defence. I confirmed and added that I do have a statement prepared, if it's necessary.

The judge said, it is not as necessary it these type of hearings but I can do it, if i want.

I only explained that apart from being mislead by the representative I was also mistreated by the whole system of the appealing process. It seemed automated and not human, which was expressed in my emails, as I admitted to not displaying the ticket as my first sentence of the email but they kept coming back with "the ticket was not displayed therefore..."-kind of statements without addressing my requests for securing the evidence of CCTVs and hiding behind data protection when I asked to involve the landlord. I mentioned that I learned that ARMTRAC, the IAS and BW LEGAL belong to the IPC trading body, so I did not have fair independent appeal process after all. I also mentioned that with the information I provided, about PA, his car, time etc, log, ticket info, they could have easily identify the person, but even this was not done.

Judge confirmed again that the main line of the defence is that you were told by the PA that you don't have to pay, and that that you asked for the evidence and was not given one.

I confirmed and he turned to the advocate.

He asked, is there anything in the claim that gives an evidence to prove that what I stated, is not true.

The advocate tried to point out, again, that I did not have the ticket and there is no proof of the conversation with the PA so they deny it has happened.

The judge asked if they have a proof that the conversation did not happen. He said, that the claim says it doubts it happened and he has to stay within those lines.

Judge said that given this, in his opinion, the conversation has happened and the payment was waived by the PA so the claim is dismissed.

Then it turned to damage control on their side. The judge asked if I had any costs. I presented my Cost schedule (judge didn't have that or couldn't find it his pack for some reason but I was prepared for this with my copies! THANKS!).

Judge looked at it and asked if the advocate received it, he confirmed. Judge analysed it - i asked for £430 based on hours out of work expenses and 30h of prep at national minimum hourly rate (as not being qualified) I explained that it is moderate to what I did to prepare for it and the stress caused. He asked advocate of what he thinks about it. The advocate quoted £95 max for out of work (which was higher than what I claimed anyway) and that he is ok up to this amount. The judge said that although the responses within the appeal process were not reasonable, the case was. He used some word to describe it but i forgot what it was...I stated that it was all unnecessary and could be resolved earlier, just as a note. The judge stated that based on this he can allow for out of hours and some expenses compensation but without the prep work which brought it up to almost £100.
I am ok with that and would't argue - I took it as an experience I gained anyway, got the case dismissed and satisfaction is there so the amount of compensation is a bonus:)

And that's it. Thanks a lot for all the help!


Note: When we were called for the hearing, the advocate asked who was the judge on the case, which made me think that he is a regular... and later I realised that this must be true, based on his behaviour before and during the case, quietness, politeness, maybe nervousness and not being argumentative at all... and due to the profession, they must have some history with some judges, other cases that are more important, some that went well and some that went wrong etc. they have much more to loose saying too much than you or they lost it already.... So what i want to say is simply don't be too stressed about being inexperienced, you don't have the baggage that you have to carry and it may work in your favour!

beamerguy

A good read harnas and well done

BWLegal were spanked again ...... they are fast becoming a white elephant in the parking scam

Who will spank them next

The_Deep

Solicitors and barristers who take on these cases are either not very good, or inexperienced. They are unlikely to have seen the case more the a day ago, it is usually badly prepared, and they may not be too familiar with the appropriate law.

]I was taken to court once in an RTA. We were both represented by wet behind the ears barristers, mine was incompetent and theirs was worse, I won.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Solicitors and barristers who take on these cases are either not very good, or inexperienced. They are unlikely to have seen the case more the a day ago, it is usually badly prepared, and they may not be too familiar with the appropriate law.

]I was taken to court once in an RTA. We were both represented by wet behind the ears barristers, mine was incompetent and theirs was worse, I won.

A perfect example on everything we see on here. Sad really

Umkomaas

Nice report and great result. Thank you for providing us with the details.