Claim received, AOS sent today, now stressing

Coupon-mad

ParkingStressie wrote: »

As always, thanks to everyone for the help so far.

The postponement of the date helped with being able to get there, didn't help with me being able to do any more prep.

Completely unprepared for hearing, no time, I know this sounds ridiculous but I promise no-one feels more !!!! about this than me, so, if anyone's able to suggest anything I could do in the 2 hours or so I have possibly available before it happens to feel even vaguely more ready I'd appreciate it.

Also I've realised I've idea what actually happens. Procedure, opportunity to talk, how to address the judge, nothing. And yes I'll search the forum later but working now so just leaving this here in case anyone has time and pity enough to throw me the odd bone.

Do you mean it was today?

What happened - let us know good or bad?

ParkingStressie

Hi Coupon, no not today, but very soon. I'm being coy because I'd rather limit my humiliation to as few people in person as possible. My written eloquence (ha! Well, when I have time) vastly outstrips my presentation in person - anxiety, neurological stuff etc etc stops me processing quickly and I stumble about verbally like I've never built an argument in my life so I'm fully expecting to crash and burn, comforted only by the thought that I've made them spend time and money. But who knows, if VCS have !!!!ed off this particular judge in the past, their crap admin could lose them the day.

ParkingStressie

That's an incredibly useful video, thank you. :-)

Coupon-mad

- It's an overstay (although the claim form doesn't say that, just a 'contravention', though DC letters do say 'parking for longer than the maximum period' but not what that period is) in a retail car park that the driver believed to be a 2hr limit (used many times before) but at some point had been reduced to 1.5/1hr and the driver hadn't noticed. It's free, so no ticket required.

Oh dear - VERY like the Beavis case.

You are going to have to find differences but as this is a multi ticket case you might even find it hard to talk about the signs not being clear. They'll say you knew about the restrictions due to the earlier PCNs...

You might be reduced to knowing chapter & verse about how to show the added costs are made up from thin air and are unrecoverable (i.e. if you lose the battle over the £100 a pop PCNs, you can at least show that the added costs are not allowed).

Lack of preparation just cost this person £610:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5995992/court-tomorrow-help-please

...that thread does also have some tips about how to argue about the added 'damages'.

ParkingStressie

Hi Coupon, no - no previous PCNs. Did I write something that suggested that..? Thanks for the thread link.

Coupon-mad

Ah OK, I skim-read your first post, thought there were 3 PCNs (I was wrong). Sorry!

OK so you will have to show the difference in the signs in Beavis when compared to this place.

I hope you put in evidence lots of photos plus the Beavis sign, like the NEWBIES thread tells you?

ParkingStressie

It's OK, I have no idea how you keep on top of all the advice you give on a daily basis. I can't even keep track of what I've done.

At least that thread you linked to has made me feel slightly prepared in comparison. I'll read the other links within it too.

I now have to go and find all my own paperwork and re-read that so I remember what the hell I said! Yes, I remember I included pics of Beavis and the signage from the VCS car park, in the dark as it was on the day in question.

Another quick Q: as I prepared my WS in something of a panic (it's my MO) I know that when I reread I'll think of new things/remember stuff I should have put in at the time. How much wriggle room is there to add, not new counter arguments as such, but at least to add to existing ones?

And another: the only reason for either driver to have been in that car park at that time was to visit a specific building, which had only recently changed use and was primarily open in the evening. That venue, after their own staff paying penalty charges because they were young and intimidated, has recently (don't have a date though) managed to negotiated an exemption to the duration of stay for their patrons, as a visit to their establishment will always be over an hour. I know people say it's pointless to wang on about the morality of charging this amount of money when no loss has been incurred by parking for an hour longer in a near empty car park, so I'm guessing the answer is 'no' here, but is it worth bringing up that if VCS are now happy to waive the rules for patrons to that business, then it's pretty bloody unreasonable to charge someone disproportionate ££ at any time?

Coupon-mad

Another quick Q: as I prepared my WS in something of a panic (it's my MO) I know that when I reread I'll think of new things/remember stuff I should have put in at the time. How much wriggle room is there to add, not new counter arguments as such, but at least to add to existing ones?

Plenty. Write yourself a crib sheet today, now you are re-reading it all.

I now have to go and find all my own paperwork and re-read that so I remember what the hell I said!

That should all be in a file already by your front door, for you to take to court!

And another: the only reason for either driver to have been in that car park at that time was to visit a specific building, which had only recently changed use and was primarily open in the evening. That venue, after their own staff paying penalty charges because they were young and intimidated, has recently (don't have a date though) managed to negotiated an exemption to the duration of stay for their patrons, as a visit to their establishment will always be over an hour.

I know people say it's pointless to wang on about the morality of charging this amount of money when no loss has been incurred by parking for an hour longer in a near empty car park, so I'm guessing the answer is 'no' here, but is it worth bringing up that if VCS are now happy to waive the rules for patrons to that business, then it's pretty bloody unreasonable to charge someone disproportionate ££ at any time?

Yes, I follow that argument but did you adduce evidence that the rules have now changed and why?

This is nothing to do with 'no loss' (ban yourself from using that word in court).

ParkingStressie

That should all be in a file already by your front door, for you to take to court!

Well yes, in an ideal world I'd be organised and not doing everything last minute. Again. And yet here we are. Executive Function is not in my skillset. Usually my other talents make up for it. It's a good job I changed my mind about studying law, frankly...

Yes, I follow that argument but did you adduce evidence that the rules have now changed and why?

In my WS? No, because I've only discovered that very recently, and since I submitted my WS. I might be able to get someone at the business to tell me when it changed, and how they persuaded them, but it's a long shot.

As it wasn't in my WS does that completely rule out mentioning it at the hearing? Even though the cute DoJ video was really helpful re: procedure I still don't feel I have the measure of how much I'll be allowed to speak beyond reading out what I've written previously in WS and skeleton, defence etc.

ParkingStressie

OK - new development! Just discovered someone has fought the exact same circumstances in the same location and won, apparently Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act swung it but I haven't seen the judgement, plus they referenced the aforementioned new system introduced of being able to log patrons of this establishment's reg numbers to avoid PCNs.

I've googled but can't find mention of the case (I promise I've googled) but apart from a date-range and which court it was held at, that's all I've got to go on. Any tips on how to find that judgement online? Like, super-fast..?