Claim issued over residential parking

malihat

Hearing is tomorrow at 2 PM. Hopefully the judge will rule in our favour. I’m going with my husband to be his lay rep. Will report back once it’s over.

malihat

Lost the case. The judge said our main argument about primacy of contract doesn’t apply because the lease doesn’t say anything about parking. It only grants a right of way with vehicles which has nothing to do with parking. I argued that it doesn’t say anything about displaying a permit or being penalised for not doing so but he said it doesn’t say anything on the contrary either so our lease is irrelevant.

Re. Landowner authority the claimant said that the presence of signs on the premises for all these years obviously means they had landowner authority as the landowner knew and the judge agreed!! I kept arguing there was no proof and the BPA’s COP requires landowner authority but the judge didn’t care.

We argued that after our successful appeal the claimant knew that we had a permit and therefore were residents. The judge said it didn’t matter because it seems from the MA’s letter that they weren’t just trying to deter non-residents from parking but also encourage ”good parking behaviour” by residents so it doesn’t matter if we are residents. We still had to display a permit.

3 of our PCNs were for not parking in marked bays but we had proof from the MA that we were allowed to park on the access road. The judge said you haven’t proven that you were displaying a permit so your argument doesn’t apply. I said as far as I was aware the claimant hadn’t raised the issue of there being no permit so I didn’t realise that was something I had to prove. It was 3 years ago, if I hadn’t displayed a permit the ticket would have said that. How can I prove that I had displayed a permit on some random day 3 years ago? The photos were mostly of the back of the car and were of such a poor quality that the permit wasn’t visible. The permit wasn’t even an issue for these tickets so I don’t understand why the judge brought it up.

The only thing he did agree with was the £60 charges for debt recovery. He removed those but awarded fixed costs which came to £300-ish plus the PCNs which were £1000-ish.

malihat

Asked if we could appeal and he denied it. We were so sure we would win, so feeling very deflated.

nosferatu1001

You can apply for leave to appeal.

malihat

Is there any point though?

malihat

Thanks a lot to everyone for all the help. Looks like we’re going to have to pay up but at least the amount has been reduced a bit.

Coupon-mad

Which court and which Judge was this? It's mad.

I would apply for leave to appeal, given this is over a grand, you should do, IMHO.

Please please please think about this for a week because it looks to me like you can either win this or win part of it, and be quids in either way.

Costs you £100 as a court fee (if you pay court fees and are not on a lowish income) and you fill in a N244 application asking for leave to appeal and stating your grounds. You would also need to ask the court who they use as their transcript providers, to type up the case (the transcript will cost you maybe £100 but you are still in a position where I honestly believe you will save a fair bit more).

You have to show the judge erred in law. I think he did, on 3 counts:

''1. The judge said our main argument about primacy of contract doesn’t apply because the lease doesn’t say anything about parking. It only grants a right of way with vehicles which has nothing to do with parking. I argued that it doesn’t say anything about displaying a permit or being penalised for not doing so but he said it doesn’t say anything on the contrary either so our lease is irrelevant.

2. Landowner authority the claimant said that the presence of signs on the premises for all these years obviously means they had landowner authority as the landowner knew and the judge agreed!! I kept arguing there was no proof and the BPA’s COP requires landowner authority but the judge didn’t care.

3. 3 of our PCNs were for not parking in marked bays but we had proof from the MA that we were allowed to park on the access road. The judge said you haven’t proven that you were displaying a permit so your argument doesn’t apply. I said as far as I was aware the claimant hadn’t raised the issue of there being no permit so I didn’t realise that was something I had to prove. It was 3 years ago, if I hadn’t displayed a permit the ticket would have said that''.

Re that last point, those three PCNs were not issued under the point of contract law about not displaying a permit and you proved you had authority and were allowed to park there - AND the PPC didn't even produce any evidence as to whether a permit was on display on those dates - so even if you just won your appeal on those 3 PCNs alone, you'd save money.

Please consider this seriously, given the size of the award. Which court and Judge?

malihat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Which court and which Judge was this? It's mad.

I would apply for leave to appeal, given this is over a grand, you should do, IMHO.

Please please please think about this for a week because it looks to me like you can either win this or win part of it, and be quids in either way.

Costs you £100 as a court fee (if you pay court fees and are not on a lowish income) and you fill in a N244 application asking for leave to appeal and stating your grounds. You would also need to ask the court who they use as their transcript providers, to type up the case (the transcript will cost you maybe £100 but you are still in a position where I honestly believe you will save a fair bit more).

You have to show the judge erred in law. I think he did, on 3 counts:

''1. The judge said our main argument about primacy of contract doesn’t apply because the lease doesn’t say anything about parking. It only grants a right of way with vehicles which has nothing to do with parking. I argued that it doesn’t say anything about displaying a permit or being penalised for not doing so but he said it doesn’t say anything on the contrary either so our lease is irrelevant.

2. Landowner authority the claimant said that the presence of signs on the premises for all these years obviously means they had landowner authority as the landowner knew and the judge agreed!! I kept arguing there was no proof and the BPA’s COP requires landowner authority but the judge didn’t care.

3. 3 of our PCNs were for not parking in marked bays but we had proof from the MA that we were allowed to park on the access road. The judge said you haven’t proven that you were displaying a permit so your argument doesn’t apply. I said as far as I was aware the claimant hadn’t raised the issue of there being no permit so I didn’t realise that was something I had to prove. It was 3 years ago, if I hadn’t displayed a permit the ticket would have said that''.

Re that last point, those three PCNs were not issued under the point of contract law about not displaying a permit and you proved you had authority and were allowed to park there - AND the PPC didn't even produce any evidence as to whether a permit was on display on those dates - so even if you just won your appeal on those 3 PCNs alone, you'd save money.

Please consider this seriously, given the size of the award. Which court and Judge?

It was DJ Rowland at Croydon County Court.

I did raise that last point with the judge when asking for permission to appeal. I said that the PCN doesn't mention anything about a permit and surely the onus is on the claimant to prove that we hadn't displayed a permit but he said something along the lines of "the PCN doesn't have to mention all the contraventions that have taken place" and since we can't prove that we displayed a permit, we have to pay. He said that if we had said at any point that we HAD displayed a permit on those 3 occasions, he might have ruled differently and I said I didn't even see how those 3 occasions had anything to do with the permit which is why I never mentioned it.

He pretty much told us we had no defence at all.

I was 95% sure we would win the case. Now I'm worried that if we appeal and lose, we'll be paying an additional £200 for the appeal and transcripts, plus their costs and we'll still have to pay the £1500-ish the judge awarded today.

Edited to add: He also said when he was giving the judgement that we should have been candid and admitted who the driver of the vehicle was on those occasions (not parked in a marked bay) and said that the driver had displayed a permit which we didn't do as we didn't realise the display of permit was even being questioned on those instances.

Coupon-mad

But he has found against you on a point that the C failed to even mention or offer any evidence to support! IMHO you (surely) can't really lose the 3 PCNs argument...and this is FOUR FIGURES, surely it is worth another throw of the dice to potentially remove and overturn the whole lot, or at least £300+.

Have you read Jopson v Homeguard? Remember she lost too, and fought on and now we have her appeal decision which is persuasive to other Judges:

https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

She lost her county court hearing, then she appealed. She did not pay.

So did the guy in Excel v Smith, and others over the years, and they didn't have a four figure sum riding on it.

You do!

It's huge, an absolute injustice and it seems very clear - even if the appeal Circuit Judge is only with you on one or two points of the three I believe are worth saying - and surely due to the amount, this is worth the fight?

And there was no £300 in costs for them to add, either, so that too can be attacked.

malihat

I am loath to pay even a penny to UKPC. I'm just confused because even if the judge dismisses those 3 PCN's we're no better off after paying the fees and after loss of earnings as a result of having to appear in court.
Our argument for the other PCNs would still be the same.

Also, I've just seen that a lay rep can't be used for appeal hearings. I was my husband's lay rep for this case and I'm not sure he'll be comfortable going for the appeal hearing by himself.