Fluttering parking ticket

Janetx

Further.............. if the Ibbotson case is still relevant.......could this be the starting point of a massive group action? Or am I completely  barking?

Umkomaas

The Ibbotson case is seen more about a 'leaving the site' issue. Which part were you looking to cite in aid of a 'fluttering ticket' case?

could this be the starting point of a massive group action? Or am I completely  barking?

Woof!

Janetx

JUDGE MciL W AINE: . said they had no legal right to take Mr Ibbotson to court as they were not the landowners. 

Janetx

having read it again I think I may be WOOF WOOF!

Janetx

I just wanted to let you all know that I have just had the hearing via video link and I WON - another one bites the dust!
Thank you all so much for your valiant efforts and the tireless work you put into these forums to help others!! It is truly amazing and without you, these scammers would be able to get away with double charging customers for parking on their site.
I am glad it is all over with even though the judge was rather mean in not awarding any costs at all, not even my time off work!

Umkomaas

Well done. Champagne time! 🥂

Would you mind giving us a bit more detail on your fine win. Which court, name of Judge, was the PPC represented, for what reason(s) did the Judge find in your favour?

Did the Judge specifically state that he wouldn't agree to the cost of your time off work?  For what reason?  Had you submitted a Summary Costs Assessment with your WS?

Janetx

Thank you @Umkomaas of course.
The Judge was Paul Wilson who doesn't usually sit in Swansea Court. Excel Parking was represented by Lewis Jukes a Solicitors Agent who presented his case first. Basically pointing out to the Judge I didn't display a ticket and the relevant signage which states clearly display in the windscreen.  Then he referred to my appeal and and then back to the photo of P&D sign stating they could recover the £70.00 and additional sum for debt recovery and under Beavis it is a contractual debt.
Then he went onto the exhibit "contract of authority" from the WS saying they had authorisation to recover fees and also the schedule of the car park.
Then it was my turn to present my case. The Judge asked Mr Jukes if he had received my Witness Statement (WS) unfortunately, he hadn't nor had he received the supplemental WS or any of my exhibits, he had only had my defence. He had to request the company to send through the WS, and suddenly he received it, but obviously hadn't had time to read it. The Judge asked him how this would affect his case and he replied well it depends on what new information is in the WS. 
Anyway, I advised the Judge at some point that they had failed to turn up to the last hearing and continued on to say that I also wanted to rely on the statement of authority "alleged contract" and how in their WS they referred to a different named company, to the company that was named on their statement of authority and how they were also different on Companies House. I also pointed out that the schedule did not cover the actual car park address that I was parked in, as their schedule referred to A14 and the Land Registry title copy referred to A14b. The Judge had also not received my exhibits and I was asked to show the land registry  plan to the Judge along with the title details. 
I drew the Judges attention to the fact that there was no valid contract in place as advised by @fruitcake and they had no authority to bring a claim as they were not the landowners.
At this point he asked Mr Jukes to comment which he said something along the lines of they are probably the same company and would need to do a search on Companies House. He then asked for an adjournment which the Judge declined.
The Judge then said the points I had raised were valid points and went on to say that I hadn't mentioned yet about the T&Cs on the signage and how he had good eyesight, but he couldn't read the terms based on the photos Excel had provided. (it was on my list of points to raise).
At this point the Judge said to Jukes,  that I had raised a fundamental and valid point, regarding the company name on their witness statement and the different company name on their contract......the Judge and the Barrister kept calling it a contract, even though I had pointed out it was not a valid contract!!!!! I pointed out that the land registry title  has the Welsh Assembly down as the landowners , this statement however was ignored.......this difference in company names..... he stated would cause this claim to fail, and he said therefore "I am going to dismiss the claim", I hadn't even finished presenting my case, I had a long list of things to point out to the Judge. I didn't even get a chance to say about the additional fee being added on and how it breached POFA 12 sch 4 and the CRA 15 for unfairness and the long list of cases I had, but it was irrelevant as I had won.
The Judge said is there anything else, I said yes I would like to raise the issue of costs and would the court agree to award costs and the Judge said no. He said how he could see how much work I had put into the defence (I should say you lovely people), however, the small claims court was there for bringing legitimate claims and he would be reluctant to award costs as it could cause financial hardship and it may also jeopardise the companies existence.  It also and may deter companies from bringing claims for fear of costs 
He said have a good weekend and stay safe that was the end of that!!

Umkomaas

Thank you, great report, very comprehensive. I must say that Swansea hasn't been a particularly happy hunting ground for motorists in the past, so especially well done.

he would be reluctant to award costs as it could cause financial hardship and it may also jeopardise the companies existence.

How thoughtful of the Judge to have the financial wellbeing of multi-millionaire Simon Renshaw Smith in his mind. My goodness, he might have had to sell his luxury yacht!

nosferatu1001

Yikes, You should have pointed to the CPR stating you must be allowed basic costs of half a days losss of leave or pay. But no huge harm !

Janetx

The Judge was having none of it, I guess I didn't want to argue with the Judge, but in hindesight i should have pushed a little harder for my loss of earnings. Although I was also quite happy it was over and I could move on with my life. Good luck to everyone else going through this, keep fighting the scammers!