Keeper vs Parking Eye CC Claim Stage (MK Central Holiday Inn)

WiltshireD

I know... I'm claiming over 300 expenses as I drove all the way to MK to investigate the site - so won't settle.

I uploaded the vids to a spare mobile device I have wiped, so it's literally the only media files on there.

WiltshireD

The court upheld the claim, but reduced the amount to £85 - the same as in Beavis.

The judge was disparaging towards me for compiling a defence online and PE for their slapdash preparation of a response to my defence.

It was asserted that visibility and no lighting is not a defence - drivers are held to a high standard of observation. The judge assumed that signage was seen and ignored.

Strangely, the judge agreed that the ***£100*** was not clearly visible on these signs - so why then uphold the claim with an amount that was visible in Beavis, but bears no relation to the present?

My video evidence of reduced visibility was not accepted - apparently a link to google drive is not good enough - it has to be sent to the court on hard media.

I can send links to the videos and pics I took on site if desired.

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

Load it on to a memory stick and enclose that with the physical WS to the court, informing alongside that you will bring your laptop/tablet (with the video pre-loaded) to show at the hearing.

WiltshireD wrote: »

My video evidence of reduced visibility was not accepted - apparently a link to google drive is not good enough - it has to be sent to the court on hard media.

Did you miss the advice I gave you?

Coupon-mad

It was asserted that visibility and no lighting is not a defence - drivers are held to a high standard of observation. The judge assumed that signage was seen and ignored.

Strangely, the judge agreed that the ***£100*** was not clearly visible on these signs - so why then uphold the claim with an amount that was visible in Beavis, but bears no relation to the present?

Ludicrous.

And he granted them a sum that WASN'T even part of the contract that wasn't seen?

Madness. Which Judge & Court?

Vine v Waltham Forest shows that if a sign can't be seen then no contract applies.

WiltshireD

Judge Wilkinson, County Court at Central London, Guildhall Bldgs.

He asserted that the sign was likely "seen and ignored" so believes a contract has been made. The signs that were unlit and arguably visible on entry said "tariff payable"... he slated PE for the lack of visibility for the again unlit smallprint signs with the ***£100*** scare caption, which were also above eye level... but upholds the £85 as some kind of rollover from Beavis ... even though by definition nobody could have seen it!

My video production was very last minute after I saw how bad their response to defence was - I wanted to hit them for extra costs if my appeal was upheld. Parking Eye acknowledged receipt of working youtube links on resolver just a few days ago, but in court, their rep denied that she had seen them. The judge didn't want to see the vids on the phone I had bought along as the court hadn't received hard copy.

WiltshireD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXJA0pmIa2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vQ1zATVuP4

http://oi64.tinypic.com/34huxom.jpg

The man is 6ft.

KeithP

Can you still not post live links? Please check.

WiltshireD

Changed.

So at first the Judge goes for "this isn't a penalty, that argument has already been lost before".

Then he says that reasonable expenses would only be £2 and something like "£15" for recovery.

The rep for PE says something along the lines of, "if it's necessary to set the figure this high - £85/£100 to make the operation as a whole successful, then it is merited in this case".

Judge go "I'm really not happy with your £100 though - look at the signage, it's not as clear as it was in Beavis" ... gives her the £85 anyway... [£85 never appeared in ANY signage in Wiltshire, so does he assume the beavis charge to be common knowledge like, get on a train without paying, and you get fined?]

WiltshireD

Say for example I dig through all my contacts in MK to see if I was there at that time - I might have evidence that I was the driver and a patron at the hotel (I go to numerous such meetings and car parks).

Would that help (it was assumed by the judge that I was the driver)?

Because ultimately, I recall being in many such car parks, but not that particular one, and have no recollection of reading a sign like the ones I went around getting photos of.

If I am proven to be the driver then my testimony of having never seen any such sign becomes relevant?

Coupon-mad

If you appealed this:

- you could only use what was stated in your defence and WS, and not add new evidence such as whether you were the driver (and in any case as long as PE got the PCN to you within 14 days then they can hold you liable as keeper under the POFA, so not being the driver becomes irrelevant).

- you can only appeal based on the Judge 'erring in law' on a matter of fact. So he found that the signs, although badly lit, were there to be seen and read, and he decided the driver failed to read them, having seen them. It would be hard to argue that he erred on that point because he found that signs could be seen, were not as clear as in Beavis, but even so, could have been read.

- if you then tried to argue on the quantum, i.e. the fact he awarded £85, isn't there a danger you'd get the appeal Judge awarding the £100 and maybe more (costs)?!

And it would cost you a court fee to appeal this - £110 I think.

His reasoning was skewed but worked in your favour by fifteen quid...