UPDATE 29/01 I need some help with a parking fine from myparkingcharge.co.uk for a hired vehicle

ireallycantyodel

Umkomaas wrote: »

You were never going to get a POPLA Code - IPC AOS Operators do not use POPLA as their second stage Appeals Service.

We do not recommend you appeal to the IAS, offered in the above response.

Ignore everything now, unless you get a Letter of Claim, or court papers from the Northampton CCBC via MCOL (or occasionally from the Salford distribution centre). Come back on this thread if you receive any of the above - do some advance research about how to deal with a court claim by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

I am going to be honest with you - as much as I would like to do that, I can't financially afford to lose this case and pay the court costs, too So unless I have some sort of reassurance that I am getting somewhere with this (as much as I think that I am in the right) the questions is, whether or not I have a shimmer of hope to win this case. Their evidence picture only shows my car in that space whereas before there were lots of cars standing next to me. I am not sure if the court cares about me waffling about other stuff as much as I'd like to think that this case should be dismissed.

[Deleted User]

To be honest, if you're gonna defend on the basis that you were to all intents and purposes parked in what appeared to be a marked bay parked next to a row of other cars (and photos even taken now showing others making the same mistake support that notion) it'll be a damn sight easier to do so having admitted to being the driver.

The problem is that when cross-examined you may be forced into a corner - especially if no one else had signed the rental agreement.

If they don't want people parking in a turning circle (and I can see why they don't) it's perfectly easy for them to hatch off the area or use double yellows. Why didn't they? Not so much signage not clear as road markings not clear, resulting in charge being unfairly enforced.

From Google Streetview (daytime) it's clear no bay is marked, but it (arguably) appears as though bays have been taken out as the tarmac is a different colour. The hatching could have been carried forward if they didn't want cars parked there. The hatched area is very small.

Coupon-mad

I am going to be honest with you - as much as I would like to do that, I can't financially afford to lose this case and pay the court costs, too

What...you mean if you lose you can't afford the £150 - £175 you'd have to pay? This is ALL told, I mean £100 PCN plus between fifty and seventy five quid on top.

Why do you think we help people defend these every day? We do so because there is NO RISK of a CCJ nor high costs!

What on earth level of costs were you imagining? We do NOT put you at risk here.

the questions is, whether or not I have a shimmer of hope to win this case.

Yes, you do. We see wins 99% of the time; losses are as rare as hen's teeth here.

Like Johnersh says, defend it as driver and be that honest witness that the other side don't have! You can do this.

ireallycantyodel

Johnersh wrote: »

To be honest, if you're gonna defend on the basis that you were to all intents and purposes parked in what appeared to be a marked bay parked next to a row of other cars (and photos even taken now showing others making the same mistake support that notion) it'll be a damn sight easier to do so having admitted to being the driver.

The problem is that when cross-examined you may be forced into a corner - especially if no one else had signed the rental agreement.

If they don't want people parking in a turning circle (and I can see why they don't) it's perfectly easy for them to hatch off the area or use double yellows. Why didn't they? Not so much signage not clear as road markings not clear, resulting in charge being unfairly enforced.

From Google Streetview (daytime) it's clear no bay is marked, but it (arguably) appears as though bays have been taken out as the tarmac is a different colour. The hatching could have been carried forward if they didn't want cars parked there. The hatched area is very small.

I didn't really have a problem admitting that I was the driver - but of course the first line of defense that was recommended was that they have to prove first that I was the driver.

Which they couldn't -aside from the other issues eg that they sent me the PCN too late etc (see my previous post). They haven't really responded to any of my points. So not sure if I should just go ahead with this argument.

If I have to pull out the other arguments it doesn't necessarily mean I ever denied that I was the driver - it just means I insisted that they have the burden of proof.

If they do back me in a corner, the question remains if I should bring out all the other arguments as well? Or if I should just roll with one line of argument.

I think the tarmac is, what confused people in the first place as it makes it seem like a bay (at least the very first person to park in this space. Unless they plant cars there to achieve exactly that.

If they take out the white markings why not go further and add yellow lines (which according to Iceland they refused to do and now Iceland has to wait every time a lorry arrives and people park there)

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What...you mean if you lose you can't afford the £150 - £175 you'd have to pay? This is ALL told, I mean £100 PCN plus between fifty and seventy five quid on top.

Why do you think we help people defend these every day? We do so because there is NO RISK of a CCJ nor high costs!

What on earth level of costs were you imagining? We do NOT put you at risk here.


Yes, you do. We see wins 99% of the time; losses are as rare as hen's teeth here.

Like Johnersh says, defend it as driver and be that honest witness that the other side don't have! You can do this.

Well, can I afford it? Technically yes although it would seriously cut into my budget for other things all in the name of principle!?

I raelly want to do this, just need some confidence that I can hack this.

Just as a side note, is this whole court thing just a matter of letters or do I have to appear in court?

[Deleted User]

or do I have to appear in court?

Absolutely you may have to appear. That said, it's not a big deal.

You'll be cut some slack - it's also not a court like you see on TV. Think of a judge (just someone in a suit - no robes, no wigs, no gavels) sitting at the head of the dining room table and you and your Opponent at the bottom. Don't talk over one another and you'll be fine.

nosferatu1001

You also cost them about £300
And thats presuming you lose!
You dont even HAVE a court claim against you yet...

Yes, you have to appear. You CAN do this on papers, but you are seriously disadvantaged for fairly obvious reasons.

KeithP

ireallycantyodel wrote: »

I raelly want to do this, just need some confidence that I can hack this.

Just as a side note, is this whole court thing just a matter of letters or do I have to appear in court?

Have a look at this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

ireallycantyodel

Johnersh wrote: »

Absolutely you may have to appear. That said, it's not a big deal.

You'll be cut some slack - it's also not a court like you see on TV. Think of a judge (just someone in a suit - no robes, no wigs, no gavels) sitting at the head of the dining room table and you and your Opponent at the bottom. Don't talk over one another and you'll be fine.

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You also cost them about £300
And thats presuming you lose!
You dont even HAVE a court claim against you yet...

Yes, you have to appear. You CAN do this on papers, but you are seriously disadvantaged for fairly obvious reasons.

KeithP wrote: »

Have a look at this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Thanks guys, I will hold on in this case.

But not appealing to the IAS will not be to my disadvantage in court, correct?

I looked for some posts on this and some people seem to have been successful with them.

On another note, someone told me that they lost the case (in court) when they went to court for the exact issue in the same car park. But I am not sure what the reason was for losing.

What do you mean it will cost them £300? I thought all the costs related to the court case would have to be paid by the party who loses?

Edit: Ok guys I just realised that the successful appeal to the IAS was a case from 2014 and that's when I also stumbled across the Beavis case.

Now in this court case the court judged that £85 is not excessive (these guys must live on London wages..)
But wasn't there a policy somewhere (which I can no longer find) by some parking body that the charges should not exceed the councils? Which in Sheffield is currently set at £ 30 not £60 let alone £100.

Umkomaas

But not appealing to the IAS will not be to my disadvantage in court, correct?

Shouldn't do - but you might have to explain the very good reasons why you didn't.

I looked for some posts on this and some people seem to have been successful with them.

What, successful at the IAS? I can only remember 3 or 4 in the past 12 months. The IAS guarantees their members a greater than 80% appeal rejection rate.

What do you mean it will cost them £300? I thought all the costs related to the court case would have to be paid by the party who loses?

PCN issue costs, solicitor costs in issuing proceedings, legal advocate costs on day of hearing, staff costs. If you win they'd cop for up to £95 for your loss of earnings/loss of annual, your mileage @45ppm and a bit of parking costs on the cay.

If you lost, it would be around £175 for you to pay. Their legal costs would be limited to a capped £50 (included in the £175). They will try to sneak in other add-ons, so you will have to point these out to the Judge and get them thrown out.

But wasn't there a policy somewhere (which I can no longer find) by some parking body that the charges should not exceed the councils? Which in Sheffield is currently set at £ 30 not £60 let alone £100.

It was raised in passing during the transition through its various stages through Parliament - the Sir Greg Knight Private Members' Bill.

nosferatu1001

OP = read CPR27.14, which covers teh small claims track. Until you have done so, do not query who pays what and how much