CPM parking charge - 3 tickets

JEK

Received 2 letters this morning.
First from BW legal advising on sending debt collectors.
Second from the court that reads - Before District Judge Iyer without a hearing on 1 November 2020
Upon considering the court file, the court order dated 8 June 2020 and the defendant's email dated 11 June 2020;
and upon 
noting that the time limit for filing and serving written evidence imposed by the earlier court order dated 28 February 2020 expired on 31 March and the Defendant wishes to rely on a witness statement dated 4 June2020 (but apparently only sent to the court on 11 June 2020, possibly in response to receiving the Court Order) but has made no application for an extension of time, permission to rrely on a late witness statement or relief against sanctions, and has not made an application under paragraph 6 of the court order. 
IT WAS ORDERED that:
the court order dated 8 June 2020 stands.

JEK

has made no application for an extension of time, permission to rely on a late witness statement or relief against sanctions, and has not made an application under paragraph 6 of the court order. 

I don't understand. how am i suppose to know to do any of this? Under paragraph 6 of the court order it advises to send evidence in the next 7 days. I Actually sent my evidence on June the 4th and 11th, I have proof of this. Yes it was late the first time (14 days before the hearing that got cancelled) but I apologised in my opening and I feel like the judge just cant be arsed even to read it. How am i suppose to know the process of these things when the letters have very little information. 

Well I am going to have to pay, what a great end to a lot of stress. I find the whole court process hard to understand.

Were_Doomed

I'm sure I've seen Judge Iyer's name mentioned here previously. Can't recall whether this was related to a positive or negative experience though.

Umkomaas

Judge Iyer has indeed featured. He is, more than most, on top of the scam. He has frequently found for the Defendant. But the ones reported didn't appear to have any issues with the paperwork.  From what I can understand of all the dates and the to-ing and fro-ing in this case, it doesn't look like this decision was so much to do with PCN per se. 

JEK

This is my own fault for misreading the original deadline I understand that. However what frustrates me is the evidence was supplied 2 weeks before the hearing which in reality is plenty of time. I have then tried to make amends and follow the instructions as per the court order which was apparently incorrect? still confused. The judge hasn't even bothered to read anything as I sent proof that i sent my WS on the 4th. He mentions I haven't followed the correct process but there has been 0 instruction or help from the courts how to fix this.

Johnersh

there has been 0 instruction or help from the courts how to fix this.
That's unfair.  The 04 June order of DJ Iyer (which appears to have been posted on this forum for some time and 2 pages previously) states clearly the position - the order having been made when you were overdue for service of your statement (31/03/2020, I think, but I've not seen that).  So on 04/06/2020 the position was this:

* you'd not served evidence so the claim fails. 
* if you wish to contest the order you have 7 days to apply to court (para 6)
* if you could prove that you'd submitted it in time (and you can't - since you acknowledge it was sent in late) the court didn't need an application. That is because papes sometimes go astray at court. (para 7) 

It seems that you then did a statement and hoped for the best / thought para 7 applied to you. Sadly, that wasn't the deal.. 

Your response on here has been that 14 days before a hearing should be enough time to read the papers. It is. But that misses the point - a failure to serve the documents in time results in a debarral from permission to rely upon it.  (see para 2 of the 04/06/2020 order)

Once late and on the absence of any application, the DJ has no reason to read it. You're done for, I'm afraid. 

Finally, the courts cannot provide legal advice and explanations. They apply the rules. If you don't understand an order you need to research or take legal advice. That responsibility is always that of the party. 

Coupon-mad

Johnersh, I do find that Court Directions for small claims are diabolically legalese, though.  It's hardly fair on LiPs.

I've seen some communications that have come out as a result of the new pilot of the OCMC, which looks a little better in terms of the wording of the emails that people receive:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/practice-direction-51r-online-court-pilot

Johnersh

@Coupon-mad I'd agree that can be applicable, but in this case I actually think the order is reasonably clear.  There's a lot more explanation than in a normal order. 

Even if you ignore the paras that require a LiP to look up court rules, 3(a) states explicitly that judgment is for the claimant and 6 says you have 7 days to challenge the order. 

Arguably the order would be clearer without para 7, but the o/p *knew* s/he'd missed the deadline (by months not days) before receiving the order, so it was never an option.

This is court. I accept that people get busy, but you can't mess around. Dates are dates. Sometimes you won't get penalised, but you often will.

Redx

Were_Doomed said:

I'm sure I've seen Judge Iyer's name mentioned here previously. Can't recall whether this was related to a positive or negative experience though.

Judge Iyer is well known in Manchester court for being on top of parking charge issues and we believe actively takes them and has seen off some of the chancers in Manchester Court

We are all waiting for the day when ukcps chance their arm with court claims against Manchester residents regarding the no waiting bay near Piccadilly station in the hope that Judge Iyer gets to make a ruling on that particular SC*m by Ukcps

I seem to remember he gave short shrift to the spinningfields loading bay SC*m a few years ago by another parking company chancer, plenty of posts on here about that topic

We believe that he is a stickler for the rules , firm but fair , so not surprising regarding the result of not following court orders. Just recently we have seen many latecomers who have not complied with court orders and come here at the last minute. Deadlines are deadlines , watch any episode of Airline where latecomers are refused entry at the departure gate , even when the plane is still on the tarmac

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5861070/judge-iyer-request-to-deal-on-papers/p1

As mentioned earlier , the OP could or should have taken legal advice about the details in the Iyer court order , but did not do so. Both sides have that same opportunity , especially if they do not understand the rules of the game

Snakes_Belly

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html
Pace v Lengyel