Court Report - Romford - UKPC Evidence Trashed

bargepole

Claim No: E1HW4F5Y - UKPC -v- Mr W, Friday 01/02/2019, before Deputy District Judge McKenzie.

I had assisted Mr W in this matter since the issue of the claim (drafted by SCS Law), and had been planning to go along as his Lay Rep. The snow here on Friday morning meant I couldn't even get out of my road, so I had to give him a phone briefing to do the best he could on his own. I needn't have worried, here is his report on the proceedings:

Court Report

I arrived at the court at 9:30am and informed the usher that my legal representative couldn’t make it due to severe weather and I asked her to inform the judge of this. The usher agreed and introduced me to the claimants’ representative Mr Brown. I didn’t catch his first name, but he said that he was freelance on behalf of SCS law. He was fairly young, probably late 20’s, brown hair. He asked me if I had any questions and he explained the process of the hearing.

We entered the court room at around 10:30am. The judge mentioned for the benefit of the recording that my legal representative couldn’t make it because of the snow and stated that I would be representing myself. I apologised in advance in case I seemed unprepared because of this.

The judge gave Mr Brown the chance to start with an overview of his witness statement and then she said the same to me. I mentioned the two main points that I deny that the car was parked where the claimant says the car was parked as the address is wrong on their contract and parking charges. I then mentioned the fact that their contract does not provide evidence that they had the authority to issue parking charges as the initial period of twelve months would have ended in September 2014 and there was no evidence to suggest it was a rolling contract.

In terms of the wrong address on the contract and parking charges, I explained that the name of “Oldchurch Hospital” was incorrect as the site had been demolished, as well as the fact the road name on the parking charges and contract is Union Road, despite there being no access to the Swan Homes site via Union Road. I also mentioned that Union Road runs parallel to three separate developments and that the claimant cannot prove precisely where the car was parked. I denied that the car was ever parked on Union Road and I said that the claimant is unable to prove otherwise. I went into some detail about what roads are parts of Swan Homes by using the Google maps screenshot, mentioning that Swan Homes is accessed by Oldchurch Road.

We spent some time going over the poorly drawn site plan which shows red marker pen scrawled over an aerial view photo of a building site from many years ago. I said that this could not be used as evidence as it does not show a key or any road names and there was no evidence of where the parking company were contracted to issue parking charges.

There was also confusion as to what part of the site plan was Oldchurch Hospital and Oldchurch Scheme, as these are described as two separate locations despite the fact that the poorly drawn site plan seems to cover parts of both areas. Mr Brown tried to mention the fact that you can see grass in the background of the PCN photos and that this matches up to the historic aerial photo of the demolished hospital grounds. The judge failed to see the relevance here.

The next point was the problems with their contract and the fact that there was no evidence to suggest the contract was rolling. Mr Brown referred to 10.2.1 of the contract. To paraphrase, “either party may terminate with a months’ notice, the client may not terminate until the expiry of the initial period”. The judge failed to see the relevance of this as it still does not prove that the contract was rolling.

Mr Brown mentioned point 7 of my defence about the signage being forbidding. For this point I wasn’t prepared and told the judge that I could not comment further on the point.

Mr Brown also decided to mention the fact that I failed to appeal any of the charges. The judge didn’t see this as a relevant point.

At the point of the judgement, the judge went through each point in a fair bit of detail, as I could see Mr Brown frantically touch typing everything that she said. This did cover at least two pages on his word document. The contract was mentioned and the fact that it does not imply it was a rolling contract so the parking company have no evidence they had the authority to issue parking charges. The poorly drawn out site plan was mentioned and the fact it can’t be considered as evidence. The claimant was not able to prove where my car was parked. Eventually I heard the words “the claim is dismissed”.

Thankfully I remembered to ask about claiming back costs. The judge said that I can’t usually claim back costs unless the other party has acted unreasonably. I then asked about loss of earnings. To my surprise the judge didn’t seem aware that I was entitled to ask for this. She pulled out a very thick white book to look it up and Mr Brown checked on his laptop. It was agreed for the claimant to pay me £95 for loss of earnings. I wasn’t asked for my payslip although I did have it with me.

I shook Mr Brown’s hand in the waiting room after the hearing and he made a swift exit.

Coupon-mad

Another one bites the dust, this time courtesy of bargepole. :T

This is somewhat disappointing if the Judge hasn't been awarding loss of leave/salary:

I then asked about loss of earnings. To my surprise the judge didn’t seem aware that I was entitled to ask for this.

beamerguy

A good win. I find it very difficult to understand why these low rate legals don't do their homework first and then are stupid enough to send a greenhorn to argue a case they are certain to lose

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

A good win. I find it very difficult to understand why these low rate legals don't do their homework first and then are stupid enough to send a greenhorn to argue a case they are certain to lose

A lot of them don't get the documentation until the day before.

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

A lot of them don't get the documentation until the day before.

I know ..... sheer incompetence from a dodgy legal