Britannia Parking POPLA appeal

crazydoglady91

Thanks, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised! I just find it odd that they've chosen to focus in as much as they have on this point, but barely bother with my arguments about signage (which is mostly the focus of my argument). To that they basically just say "the signs are blue, therefore it is not accepted that they are not prominent. " :rotfl:

crazydoglady91

Hi all, I hope you've all recovered from any sore heads by now!

I thought I'd better ask a few questions before I start tearing my hair out over this.

1. Skeleton argument. I know this is optional, but will I be putting myself at a big disadvantage if I don't do this step? I've found myself absolutely swamped with unexpected work and responsibilities right now (serves me right for having the audacity to take a week of over Xmas!) and I'm not sure whether I'll have the time to put something of reasonable quality together. I'm wondering whether my time would be better served putting together a rough memory aide just for my reference.

2. Costs schedule. I submitted this with my witness statement, but is it possible to serve a revised version now? I included a claim for unreasonable behaviour, but after reading a few more threads today, it seems like that may only be relevant in certain cases? Or is the whole fake £60 charge enough to claim unreasonable behaviour?

Redx

if there is still time you can add a supplementary WS and include the revised costs schedule, at the end of the day either the judge will consider it , or wont , plus only if you win, so saves time on the day (and an ambush is not recommended anyway)

Coupon-mad

Skeleton argument. I know this is optional, but will I be putting myself at a big disadvantage if I don't do this step?

No. Most people don't on the forum.

The really STUPID ones are those who refuse to file/serve a Witness Statement (at all) but you'd have to be getting really bad advice to do that. Luckily, I've only been told about one company purportedly 'advising' victims of PPCs, who are stupid enough to routinely try that approach, and their Trustpilot reviews are so atrocious that people would be mad to seek advice/hand over their data and pay money to such people to lose their cases.

2. Costs schedule. I submitted this with my witness statement, but is it possible to serve a revised version now? I included a claim for unreasonable behaviour, but after reading a few more threads today, it seems like that may only be relevant in certain cases? Or is the whole fake £60 charge enough to claim unreasonable behaviour?

Stop trying to backtrack, of course their conduct is unreasonable. Stop trying to remove your costs for unreasonable conduct.

crazydoglady91

OK, thanks for the reassurance. That's anxiety for you I guess, always trying to second guess myself!

Well I've had a go at getting something written down for the skeleton argument anyways, I'll post it up here tomorrow.

crazydoglady91

Well... I’m pretty embarrassed and upset to say that we lost the hearing...

I had a tough time convincing the Judge that the signage was poor. A bit surprising since others I’ve shown the evidence to have all agreed that it’s atrocious how they’re all placed behind parked cars.

The judge was a tough cookie though, I feel like it would have taken quite a lot to get him to side against the PPC. There was a lengthy ParkingEye case before us that was also lost to the PPC. Ours was also a long hearing, around 1hr 20. The court attendants were surprised to see us when we came out, thinking we must have already left!

He put a surprising amount of stock in BW’s argument I mentioned on here about if a tariff was paid, then signage must have been adequate. I rebutted this with the fact that the tariff signage isn’t actually next to the machine (as seen in aerial image), it’s behind a parking bay (surprise surprise) 3 bays away from the machine. Also referred to signage prominence being a key factor in the Beavis judgement etc. Seemingly I was not convincing enough on that point.

The judge also again put a surprising amount of stock in the 2017 judgement (I forget the names, but I can find out if anyone wants to know specifics) which stated that it would not be “onerous or oppressive” to expect motorists to park their car before entering the car park on foot to check the terms and conditions first. I mentioned that this isn’t possible on Poole Quay, it’s double yellow lines all the way along unless you’re in a marked bay, so you would have to be risking getting a ticket from the council to do this. He said nothing to that point.

I didn’t have a hard job arguing that the £60 was unrecoverable, he already knew quite a bit about those cases given that this was in Dorset. What he didn’t seem to buy into was that it tainted the entire claim as an abuse of process, but again said nothing on that point.

So that’s it really! At least it’s over now. It was a tougher experience than I thought it would be, whether because he was a particularly tough judge or because I underestimated my anxiety, I don’t know. Towards the end the “brain fog” had definitely descended, and I don’t doubt that I was probably not as clear and concise as I wanted to be. I could just be self-flagellating though, the judge did give me a few complements on being organised.

I still feel pretty disappointed with myself though and nervous to update you all, like I’ve let the side down a bit.

Thank you all for your help anyway, and to anyone reading this with a Bournemouth/Poole parking fine, just be aware that they seem a bit more pro-PPC than some of the other judges seen on here!

Umkomaas

Sorry about your disappointing news. There is no question of you 'letting the side down' at all. The small claims court is a lottery and just your coin came down on the wrong side.

to anyone reading this with a Bournemouth/Poole parking fine, just be aware that they seem a bit more pro-PPC than some of the other judges seen on here!

From our experience you're right on point with that. For example, Devere Parking (check them out on here or via Google) have had disproportionate success in their 'home' court in Bournemouth.

Anyway, lick the wounds, knowing that this has cost Britannia far more than they will recover from you, then move on with the more important things in life. All the best .....

beamerguy

Sorry to hear but don't blame yourself, it happens and it's called Judge Bingo.

Sad to say that the judge maybe was so fixed on the previous parking eye case that confused him.

Abuse of process has never been a golden ticket but many judges seeing this will strike out the claim regardless.
Surprised that as this a Dorset court under the same umbrella as Southampton, this judge had missed the point.

Did he allow the fake £60 ???

Your experience tells us that in future Bournemouth is a no go court and as Southampton is just up the road, that is the court to use

Le_Kirk

Really tough luck getting an unsympathetic judge. Like others have said don't blame yourself. Put it down to life's experience. If you feel up to it in a couple of days, you could hang around on the forum and try to help others, as you now have first hand knowledge of the experience.

Coupon-mad

The judge also again put a surprising amount of stock in the 2017 judgement (I forget the names, but I can find out if anyone wants to know specifics) which stated that it would not be “onerous or oppressive” to expect motorists to park their car before entering the car park on foot to check the terms and conditions first.

VCS v Crutchley I think, or VCS v Ward (both truly AWFUL decisions).

I didn’t have a hard job arguing that the £60 was unrecoverable, he already knew quite a bit about those cases given that this was in Dorset.

Good stuff, at least the damage limitation plan worked.

Sometimes it is just a combination of 'DJ Bingo' (you drew a short straw Judge!) and brain fog/anxiety. I say that not in any way to criticise you, but you are the second person since Xmas who lost a case and mentioned that they suffer from severe anxiety and brain fog, the other person said the same thing.

Both of you would have been better with a confident friend or family member to sit with you and speak for you as your lay rep, I feel.

We will learn from this as a forum of advisers, and next time a poster says they really suffer from crippling anxiety and/or brain fog, we will have to suggest that they get a family friend or relative to be their lay rep.

In your case though, I am not sure it would have made a difference as the Judge had made his mind up about the signs and ludicrously relied on one of the worst PPC appeal judgments we've seen since the Beavis case. A Britannia car park where a parking licence is apparently on offer but with hidden signs, is nothing like a VCS alleged 'no stopping zone' and as you say, no driver could possibly have stopped & got out to read the signs on foot first.

That was LUDICROUS in Crutchley and is ludicrous every time a Judge even thinks it is a sensible judgment to pay regard to. It was a badly decided case, utterly hair-brained from the Judge and a clear example of that Judge being led up the garden path by a PPC rep.

Bad luck. Very good effort. Take comfort in the fact that you gave it your best shot, learnt a lot that will help you and your family to avoid this every happening to you again, and you cost them a heck of a lot more than you were ordered to pay.