What actually happens in court tomorrow..

Umkomaas

@SB - it's great seeing you helping on the forum after your own case has (almost!) concluded. You're a very rare breed indeed on here. If just 5% of the people we help came back to support with the lifting, the fight against PPC world would be so much more effective.

Excellent stuff.

The_Deep

Judges are not fools, they are well aware that most of these cases are a scam, not real breaches of contract which have damaged the claimant, and in many cases a waste of court time and an abuse of process.

Some are also no doubt aware of the business relationship between Gladstones and many of these companies, which the SRA says presents no conflict of interest.

Some interesting stuff about these legal minnows here

https://www.bing.com/search?q=gladstones+prankster&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=d1bfcc8691c74a7ce43b499233d27e32&PC=ACTS&sp=-1&pq=gladstones+prankster&sc=0-20&qs=n&sk=&cvid=d1bfcc8691c74a7ce43b499233d27e32f

bergkamp

@clarinet1981 - How did it go today?

Weasel_Watcher

Umkomaas wrote: »

@SB - it's great seeing you helping on the forum after your own case has (almost!) concluded. You're a very rare breed indeed on here. If just 5% of the people we help came back to support with the lifting, the fight against PPC world would be so much more effective.

Excellent stuff.

Well I'm always here too, and I'm sure there are others. It's just that you guys have so much more experience that any advice I can give is mightily trumped. However I am learning.

Umkomaas

Weasel_Watcher wrote: »

Well I'm always here too, and I'm sure there are others. It's just that you guys have so much more experience that any advice I can give is mightily trumped. However I am learning.

Great to have you here with us. When I first got involved I literally knew absolutely zilch about this stuff, and I very nervously started to dip my toes into the water with some very basic signposting, leaving the then regulars (just Coupon-mad left from when I first joined) to deal with the more difficult issues.

But once the snowball started rolling down the hill ........

Snakes_Belly

Weasel_Watcher wrote: »

Well I'm always here too, and I'm sure there are others. It's just that you guys have so much more experience that any advice I can give is mightily trumped. However I am learning.

I get upset when I see vulnerable people abused. I can stand up for myself but many can't. I was sickened when the barrister at my hearing told me that he had won a case against a disabled person whose badge had fallen in the foot well. As a carer myself I had experienced a similar issue but fortunately it was on a council car park and was cancelled upon production of the BB.

We are all in this together and believe me irrespective of whether Excel appeal to the court ruling in my case I have not finished with them yet.

Footnote. I don't think that the representatives of the PPC's always have a choice. They have to take what comes. I could see that it was going against the grain with both representatives that I have met. The sooner the new CoP the better for most parties with the exception of the PPC's.

clarinet1981

Hi folks,

Apologies I didn’t post yesterday but I got home late.

I lost but the amount was reduced from £243 to £170.
I have two other PCNs on the same defence in court for Aug so will have to settle I reckon.

However, some interesting things happened.

The euro parking chap turned up. My original defence was really bad and that’s what sunk me.

So, The judge was on my side form the start challenging the claimant immediately that a man parking in his own spot at work with a young baby etc... without the permit is hardly a great ethical stand to bring to the court.

He really helped me to cross examine the claimant and tried to help me push the signage argument. But the chap kept coming back to the defence logged on MCOL where I had said I had a permit to park there.

The judge even advised me that ‘if you answer the next question “yes”, then you understand this will seriously weaken your defence’.

It was put to me by the claimant that I had a permit and therefore knew I had terms and conditions to abide by. I answered “no” and pursued the line that I was an authorised user.

That didn’t work as I had no proof so I went after the signage terms, location and font etc... I had photo evidence that one was damaged and the judge was pushing the claimant on it heavily.

But ultimately he kept returning to the defence. I had to agree that I had a permit but argued that if the signage was poor then I was technically entering into a different contract every time I parked there.

The judge agreed with that but had to agree also that prior knowledge of the terms meant I had no defence.

So...moral of the story. Spend lots of time at the defence stage. I only found this forum after that.

He allowed the £100 fine but not the £60 added. I then had the court fee and solicitor fee on top as well as a few costs for the Euro parking chap.

I knew it would be hard if someone turned up but oddly, I enjoyed the experience. I can pay the fine and it’s a pain but it’s not the end of the world. But there are so many people who this could really cripple. So the work you do on here is so worthwhile.

The euro parking cheap was ok mr aggarwal. We spoke after about the other fines and maybe not going to court. I agreed that Gladstone’s can contact me. But I’m not making a huge offer there. I’ll go again and lose if need be to get them lowered. That’s for £461!

Cheers for all the quick comments.

Umkomaas

GLADSTONES case with euro car parking

Sorry to hear of your loss. So we can be clear, can you please confirm which of the following 'Euros' were actually pursuing you.

Euro Parking Services Ltd

Euro Car Parks Ltd

Euro Parking Collection PLC

Just so we can determine just which of these is involved. Thanks.

clarinet1981

Sure,

Euro parking services

BrownTrout

It was euro parking services Ltd