Snatch! Taking it lock stock n' barrel

DoaM

What's happened to IamEmanresu? He's showing in this thread as an Archived User?

waamo

DoaM wrote: »

What's happened to IamEmanresu? He's showing in this thread as an Archived User?

It's when you have asked for your account to be closed.

AnotherVoice

I thought Lock Stock was pretty main stream.. perhaps showing my age.

Coupon-mad

It may be an idea not just to sit in on a parking case or two, but something else where there appears to be an experienced solicitor/barrister instructed just to see them approach it.

Thanks, I will do that.

If you're super keen and in London in the school half term holidays, the interim hearings on the Masters corridor at the Royal Courts of Justice arent exciting (a bit dull really) in terms of content but are very efficient in terms of advocates dealing with papers (it's a lovely building to visit too).

I might be in London later in the Spring and could do that.

helpforDan

Johnersh wrote: »

So here it is, the match report in what was a game of two halves. As you'll see, not entirely plain sailing. Prepare and prepare well my friends....

Rory - "If the milk turns out to be sour, I ain't the kinda [person] to drink it."
So this was a bog standard claim, that kicked off in an unremarkable way - a ticket, a postal notice and the usual raft of correspondence in which the PPC, debt collector and solicitors all spectacularly failed to do anything other than supply template letters and refuse to provide information like copy signage or contracts with the land owner.

The issued ticket was for failure to display a permit on a site which was adjacent to some flats.

A claim form followed and... I didn't like it. There was little detail - just a date and a demand for payment really. Strictly speaking, I think it was defective. So I applied to strike it out (not the claim, just the Particulars in favour of something more detailed). My beef is that the witness statement comes too late in the process and after the Defence, so as a Defendant you are prejudiced.

I applied on the papers (£100) but we had a hearing. The judge disagreed with me, so the claim remained in play and I was down £100. I'd like to think that I was right, but I can't argue with the pragmatism which was "you know this is a parking ticket, let's just press on with the claim, shall we?" Not quite what the rules say, but it is a small claim. The milk was indeed pretty sour, but no need to chug it all down; the claim had to go on and we hadn't yet done costs. The Claimant sought approximately £100 hearing fee costs (it might've been more). I managed to at least get that dismissed outright. That's litigation.

At this point, it was probably a score-draw. Their advocate had presumably been paid that brief fee of between £75-100 by the Claimant to be there, so we were both down.

Plank - "Ah! They [flipping] shot me!"
Dog - "Well, [flipping] shoot them back then"...
Undeterred, the litigation continued. With the benefit of a copy of the signage which was (at last) provided in the aforementioned hearing, I could, at least do a detailed defence. That was straightforward - the Claimant was put to proof as to who was driving and, as a primary argument, it was asserted that a sign requiring permit holders to display a permit is, on a strict interpretation not a contract that any visitor can comply with (i.e. it is impossible for non-residents to comply with). That is to say, it is void under the doctrine of impossibility. (This is not a new argument: See, for example, the judgment in PACE v Lengyl which can be linked to from this site and/or the parking prankster site). That judgment (DJ Iyer in Manchester) is really clear and worth a look.

There then followed a witness statement from the Defendant. No surprises, please. It was chock full of legal argument and light on any witness evidence (i.e. what anyone there present actually said or did). Barry Beavis put in an appearance (ParkingEye v Beavis), Buckingham Palace featured (HMRC vs VCS parking), as indeed did the hapless Mr Loake (Elliot v loake) a criminally misunderstood case, that one.

I didn't bother with a statement of my own - the PPC thoughtfully had taken lots of photos of my car to show where it was.:D it made sense to admit where the car was parked and the lack of permit and avoid an unnecessary cross-examination.

Eddy - You could choke a dozen donkeys on that! And you're haggling over one hundred pound?
And so it was, that yes, a corporate really did go off to Court to haggle over £100 (or, more accurately £160 plus costs, court fees and bolt-ons). The DDJ had time to fully consider all of the issues. He was one of 4 judges sitting, I understand. That presumably took the pressure off him as he certainly took his time to understand the arguments and even briefly reserved judgment to consider the issues before handing down his judgment.

As set out above, the Defence argument was that the (alleged) contractual requirement to display a permit could simply never have been performed. The Claimant case was that it could and had the Defendant owned a flat, it would have been capable of being complied with... that was of course, my point... I didn't and yet it was said to be an offer and contract that extended to me. Similarly with most visitors to the site, very few people could ever comply with the terms that seemed designed to place the individual into an immediate breach of terms.

The Claimant's secondary argument was that the Defendant agreed to pay £100 as an alternative to displaying a permit and that I agreed to that instead. The difficulty with that argument is that the signage referred to a breach of terms resulting in a charge of £100 - i.e. it was clearly a term being levied for a breach of contract not merely an expensive parking fee.

Big Chris - "It's been emotional"
Judgment for the Defendant. The contract was void for impossibility.
Leave to appeal refused.
Defendant costs to be paid within 14 days (half day rate and train fare - about £60)

FWIW - I'm not sure in either hearing the advocates actually had rights of audience in the county courts. I didn't run the point, but I probably should've done. The problem is that the DJ could choose to adjourn rather than strike out the claim and, sometimes finality of dealing with the case on the day is no bad thing.

AND FINALLY, thanks to my fellow forum-ites - not just the regulars like Couponmad, but those that post up their recent experiences too. It's all grist to the mill. I kept this one mostly off radar, but it has been helpful checking in on the example claims, statements and generally the experiences of other. You can always learn something.

Well done on your win Johnersh

There was only one case listed on courtserve for a second hearing that day - was this at Staines.

Can't understand why you made a formal application for a strike out though?

It is often easier to invite the court to force the Claimant to file better POCs

[Deleted User]

Can't understand why you made a formal application for a strike out though?

Invite is optional. Compel is better. Can you imagine if the PPCs were obliged as a result to plead all of these properly?

Whilst I lost that element, strictly speaking I believe my interpretation of the CPR was correct. That's life (and litigation risk) for you. In any case, at that hearing the claimant did (at last) disclose the signage, which was helpful to the defence. It's not just me: A review of the forums does appear to indicate that DJs are divided on the adequacy of 1 sentence particulars.

I now have my final order, which is nice. I will enforce if payment is late.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh you don't need to explain your reasoning.

You are legally qualified, unlike some who impersonate that position.

[Deleted User]

Indeed. But I'd dislike my Flesch-Kincaid stats to be adversely affected.

Bacon: "Guns for show, knives for a pro."