Mostly LOST case— (Premier Park & BWlegal for ANPR overstay)

D_P_Dance

They do, but you need ti be robustly assertive

bargepole

D_P_Dance said:
Bargepole may be right, but imo he tends to take CPRs etc as gospel, and underestimates the power of a determined and well educated person to beat the machine.

Yes, I keep copies of the White Book (Volumes 1 and 2) on my bedside table, and devote at least 30 minutes of reading time every night before sleep. 

Directing a Judge to the relevant part of the CPRs to underpin an argument, has resulted in a successful outcome for my clients far more often than not.

WhizzKid

I have today returned from holiday to find:
The order to pay the defendant from my case
A cheque from BWLegal
AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT and for us to return to court within a week.

There are no details as to why this has happened, save for another judge having read the judgement an a fresh WS it seems.
The hearing is to be by telephone, which I intend to reject once more to allow confirmation of visual materials. Additionally it is incredibly short notice.

Really, really, not impressed. I had nearly shredded my bundle.

Coupon-mad

The other side will have sent an application to set aside the judgment due to not being aware of the last hearing, or something.

WhizzKid

…or something. Well if I can keep on top of the correspondence with my workload.
New judge. New opportunities…

WhizzKid

So my 2 years ended today in the County Court in Winchester before Distrct Judge Paine (I cannot find him on the register anywhere).
He upheld the claim for the parking charge (£100), but refused the additional costs (£60). He awarded the claimant £100 costs. Interest was granted at 1%, but when calculated to be 25p was waived.

The quality of signage required referred to in Beavis did not seem to impress the judge, neither was he prepared to entertain whether it met the BPA standard (it does not). He asserted that it was an invitation to go and find the terms and conditions displayed. The claimant asserted the judgement in Crutchley that one must look at T&Cs before entering the site (upheld), yet they were there to view once upon the site for facility. I explained the contradiction therein.
The judge was satisfied that a full contract was offered with clear terms and therefore accepted by my stay. Early on the claimant in response to my defence stated that the terms were not clear in respect of the additional costs and apologised. I pointed out that I was being asked to accept all the terms and there was no dialogue for selectivity. The judge seemed to ignore this.

In summing up the judge said that it was a reasonable expectation that one would have to pay for parking under these circumstances and it did not feel that the legality of the demand for money was actually tested. He upheld the entry signage as being a direction to further signage and no matter how those signs fell short in respect of Lord Denning's red hand rule or the uncertainty of terms therein were adequate to create a binding contract.

In denying the additional costs claim he felt that the way the claim was worded separated the two aspects out from being a global claim and therefore he was able to uphold one aspect and deny the other.

In respect of the test of fairness and legality of contract I do not think the aspects of law were assessed and a lay assessment that it said you must pay so therefore you must seemed to be presented.

Obviously I feel somewhat deflated. Although the somewhat avuncular judge seemed measured he admitted to having read little of the case before the hearing and so I do not believe really understood any of the case nor statute behind my defence.

I can deduct the £25 awarded when they didn't turn up the last time, and I have no idea how we got to be back in court again, but that must be at least 100 hours of my life I won't get back, to add to the £100 + £100 awarded!

  

Coupon-mad

That's a shame but good to hear that Winchester Judges (the Semark-Jullien appeal case area) are not taking their Circuit Judge's vague and misconceived judgment in that case, to mean that additional fake costs are payable.

PLEASE COME BACK  IN JULY/AUGUST, THOUGH! 

WE NEED YOU.

Please do us and yourself (and the driving public) a favour and stick around on this forum every week - at least for the Summer - to ensure you see when the Government publish and open the final Technical Consultation.

We will be talking about it and the public will have about 4 weeks we think, to tell the MHCLG what you think about the level of parking charges, that the MHCLG has admirably decided already will start at £50 (50% discount) and not £100:

Outcome of 2020 Consultation (look what the public comments achieved so far):

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

Planned Summer 2021 additional Public Consultation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-technical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges

It's not open yet but please keep check here to see when it is. 

We need real people like you to counter the spamming that happened last time from the industry.

D_P_Dance

 I do not believe really understood any of the case nor statute behind my defence.

If you think that complain here.  

https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroner

Drbw

Maybe the moral of the story is one has to be extremely explicit to Judges that think they are above these case (of course they are). From their perspective, they are pesky nonsense that they don't really wish to engage with. Who does? 

One has to emphasise and re-emphasise the case law. That precedent have been set in previous cases that the court must be consistent with. I recall a hearing many years ago, where I expected the judge to know about previous cases. I used the same defense Id seen someone else use for the same offense but got a fine rather than an acquittal. The court Clark who'd been in the other hearing tired to help me, mentioning previous precedent or something to that effect. But in the moment, and being very young, I wasn't able to asert this. The judge got on with his business and I had to pay a small fine. That was for cycling in a no-cycling path in a park! I think they were trying to keep the court open and give it work. It was a farce. 

Judges are lazy and won't do the mental work without you pushing them to. And they also like to follow protocol. One has to insist they do otherwise you get railroaded. 

But bigger picture £200 is not so bad. Have to write it off and celebrating being free of this. The claimant won't have made any money after all their costs. The whole charade is waste of everyone's time. If everyone fought, there would be no industry. It relies on people who cave in and pay up. So credit to you for fighting! You didn't get the decision this time, but you may have hearings or tribunals in the future (I have) and you'll be a little wiser and ready to fight your corner. 

WhizzKid

I am embarking on a medico-legal career. The whole experience was very valuable to me and worth every penny! I over-estimated the enthusiasm of the judiciary for following the law. It was astounding.