Albert street car park birmingham

Quentin

Great news, but shame it ended up costing you £100 after all!


When you have time can you do a report?

U414830

Will do, thanks for all your advice.

BrownTrout

Well done on your win. Look forward to your report and on what points you won on

Redx

Well done

Another one bites the dust

[Deleted User]

Chapeau ! Well done.

U414830

Must admit I couldn't have done it without you guys so a big thank you and a massive up yours to the car parking company. Must have cost them a few hundred quid.

U414830

Yesterday's win.
Signed in with the usher who then introduced me to the Claimant’s representative. He explained that he doesn't work for vcs but has been hired today to deliver their case.
He asked if I knew how it all worked and if I knew the amounts being claimed to which I replied yes to both, £185.

He then enlightened me that the hearing fee £25 and his fee £185 would also be claimed should vcs win but not to worry as the judge would decide what is to be paid and that he thought it would be capped at around £150, also that he thought that the hearing shouldn't take any longer than thirty minutes.

Now, I know its a money claim and money will be discussed but I found it hard not to think that this was another attempt of intimidation but he actually came across fine and I wasn't at all worried by what he said.

We were both ushered in, the Judge made an introduction and proceeded to go through our papers asking what was the main reason why we were both here, the vcs rep stated that a breach of contract as the defendant failed to input his full registration and so didn't have a valid ticket for the vehicle parked.

Comments I made.
Other systems in other car parks wouldn't allow a partial registration input if it was a requirement.
Judge- you didn't park in one of those car parks you parked at Albert St with its own system.

I took the hit so then talked about the signs and ticket logo and said contact could only be with Excel not VCS, I referred to similar cases won.

Judge- this does seem confusing although the sign at the payment machine does mention vcs but yes most only with Excel.

I stated that my ticket did in fact identify my vehicle and the fact I have the ticket proves this could only be for my vehicle as no other vehicle with a registration 08 was in the carpark

Judge- to the Claimant’s rep, "I trust you have seen this ticket"? . ("Yes sir").

After going over different points in both our statements the Judge delivered his lengthy verdict.

The breach of contract was simply because the defendant failed to input his full registration, he did however adhere to all other instructions and therefore no loss was suffered.

This is a penalty of a £100 to which I'm uncomfortable with as this is de minimis, a simple error made by the defendant.

If I refer to the consumer rights 2015 act then the claimant is a trader and the defendant is consumer.
The defendant purchased a ticket which you claim is invalid for his vehicle but clearly some of the registration is in place and he has this ticket.

I make the judgement that this ticket is in fact a valid ticket for the Defendant's vehicle so the case is dismissed.

The Judge made a comment about how long my defence was and that it was clear that I'd used the Internet as he'd seen a lot of the wording before, some being valid but others irrelevant.

At the end the judge asked if either had any further comments to which the rep tried to argue the judgment stating this is simply a breach of contract to which the defendant is liable. The judge refused to accept or listen and then turned to me for further comments to which I put my costs forward.

I claimed £200 but the judge only awarded £109 in total, he did question if I'd lost pay or was it a paid holiday to which I replied its a lost day with my family sir so it is a loss.

The rep presented the Claimant’s case well but was clearly struggling to convince the judge why I'd been pursued as a non-payer.

It took 45 minutes but seemed alot shorter, I would definitely do it all again without hesitation.

Thanks to all those who made it possible to win and for the encouragement to get there.

[Deleted User]

Good job. Well done for fighting it.

I'm pleased that the substantial compliance and no pecuniary loss points were given the weight they should have been. It's the correct call.

*Rant #1* I dislike the DJs apparent distinction between lost work and holiday, because holiday is PAID leave. Loss of it is, in effect loss of pay as it is not utilised for the purpose intended. Looked at another way, to get back an additional day of leave, you'd need to ask for UNPAID leave - thus, it follows, it is an actual loss.

*Rant 2* What a waste of everyone's time and effort and taxpayer cash. The use of the court system on such a bulk scale - irrespective of the merits needs to be stopped. For the PPCs there is no risk assessment, this is just a numbers game to facilitate as many payments as they can.

U414830

Johnersh, a massive thank you again for the important tips and advice given, especially during the skeleton argument phase maintaining that I remained focused and on the correct path throughout.

I know that what you guys do and say makes a massive difference and your presious time donated to this site is appreciated.

Please keep it going as I'm sure you all will and take it from me I wouldn't have done it without you guys. You offer so much to the average person wrongfully accused and trapped in a system that so many think I'll just pay as it's easier.

We all need to stand up for what is correct to defeat these scammers and to prevent further cash generation.

After my experience I can honestly say that it isn't as bad as first thought, to say my piece and let a Judge decide is all I wanted. I'd do it all again without a doubt.

Thanks again and I'll keep a close eye on this site going forward. The Good always prevail.

Umkomaas

The breach of contract was simply because the defendant didn't input his full registration, he did however adhere to all other instructions and therefore no loss was suffered. This is a penalty of a £100 to which I'm uncomfortable with as this was de minimis a simple error made by the defendant . If I refer to the consumer rights 2015 act then the claimant is a trader and the defendant is consumer, the defendant purchased a ticket which you claim is not valid for his vehicle but clearly some of the registration is in place and he has the ticket. I make the judgement that this ticket is in fact a valid ticket for the Defendant's vehicle so the case is dismissed.

Nail on the head. Switched on Judge.

this was de minimis a simple error made by the defendant

Music to The Deep's ears (I think he now finally spells it correctly!).

Well done @U414830 - nice win, and thanks for your excellent feedback. :T