We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
***Update*** Claim dismissed!
Comments
-
OPS Ltd (DCB Legal) vs F-i-L in the County Court at Brighton. Claim number H2KF4V91
Firstly I want to extend my utmost appreciation and thanks to C-M and ParkingMad for their tremendous support and advice in what was likely to be a difficult case. I extend that gratitude to those that helped me on forum also.
Prelims
Defence was pretty much as above and WS as per recent similar case tailored to this specific case which was a residential PCN issued by OPS in May 2019. Went through failed parking operator and unusually POPLA appeals, normal DC nonsense until LBC issued. At this point decided to nominate driver as felt defendant's lease agreement held more sway than OPS signage and alleged contract. Rinse and repeat until LBC stage reached again. Claim issued in spite of response and pretty much followed the MCOL guideline to the letter. Court date set originally for November 2022 but adjournment requested short notice due to 85yo F-i-L illness. Fortunately agreed and adjourned hearing listed for today. I was very surprised that we did not receive a late notice discontinuance as per the current trend so felt pretty nervy that the claimant felt they had a strong case.
Court Report
Preliminaries went as expected. Introduced ourselves to the usher half an hour before the listed time at 1000 and I requested to lay rep on behalf of the D. He said he would ask the Judge (I was never told the outcome but was allowed into the room and allowed to speak so I assume positive!). The claimants rep entered the waiting room and introduced himself to the usher. I recognised the name as the author of the C's WS, a litigation assistant employed directly by OPS. He did not attempt to approach us, possibly due to the number of other people in the waiting room. Just before 10am the Clerk confirmed to the C's rep and us that we would be heard first. Around 15 mins later we were called in.
The Judge (hate myself here - promised I would get the name but failed as many others do! I'll update when the order comes through) introduced all parties present and highlighted what the case was about. Remarked on detailed D. WS initially submitted and the order to refine it which was complied with. C. claimed had not received so Judge informed him of when it was sent. C. flapped about through his papers for a while and eventually found it. Back up copy of my WS not required. Judge then proceeded to detail the elements of the C's and D's WS.
He noted that both parties relied quite heavily on the Beavis judgment. He explained, in some detail, why it did not support either parties case. He admonished the C's rep for his lack of understanding of the case surmising he must have only read the case headlines. I wish I could recollect more but I was completely mesmerised at this point and starting to feel confident for the first time.
After eloquently debunking the rest of the arguments sided by both parties he stated that the case would be decided on contract law. He then asked the C's rep to explain the signage and the procedure for permits (there is none - as confirmed by the Landowner agreement appended to my WS) and the procedure for authorising vehicles, visitor or otherwise, which the rep proceeded to detail at some length and then the Judge asked me for my response. I pointed out that there has never been any permit requirements on site, the D has never been informed about any requirement to display a permit and that the signage has since been changed and does not require a permit to be displayed in any case. I further highlighted that I had requested proof via email (in evidence) from both the landowner and the C. about the procedure for pre-authorising vehicles but had received nil response. I asked that the C. provide evidence of such. The Judge asked the rep as such, he could not.
The Judge then went onto explain some relevant areas of contract law and quoted "impossibility of contract". Due to the lack of evidence from the C. that the two main points on the signage which were supposed to form the contract the terms were deemed to be impossible to comply with so claim dismissed on ground of impossibility. Obviously delighted but confused as I had never heard the term before or mentioned it in my defence. I had argued "frustration" quite heavily and since understand that "impossibility" is a subset of "frustration".
He then explained why the costs for claim had not reached the high bar required for unreasonable behaviour but stated that the D was entitled to ordinary costs. He asked me what I was claiming for. I responded that the D was retired so no loss of earnings and mentioned that as a lay rep I probably wasn't entitled to loss of earnings. He disagreed and said I had obviously put a lot of time and effort into the case on behalf of the D and offered me 1/2 days’ pay and travel costs totalling £52.50!
In summary the case pretty much went as expected, due to the amazing work and advice from you forumites. Another one bites the dust albeit a little harder work than most!
14 -
Excellent, well done and thank you for the comprehensive report.3
-
Well done on your win. We love a court report especially when the defendant has won.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.3 -
Fantastic result and a top class court report. We really do appreciate the feedback, so thank you very much for that. Hope your F-I-L can relax now that the OPS crap is behind him.
Well done @Molts, really pleased for you both.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street3 -
I suspect the username of the other person who helped you is ParkingMad. She is heavily involved with C-m in fighting OPS wherever they infest.
Well done, and thanks for such a detailed court report.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks4 -
Brilliant report!
What a result! I always felt this might be a difficult one to argue - not a shoo-in by any means - due to the photos we saw off-forum, but well done!Firstly I want to extend my utmost appreciation and thanks to C-M and a significant other (sorry I only know her real name, not her handle on here but if I find it out, I'll amend. You know who you are!) for their tremendous support and advice in what was likely to be a difficult case.She's @ParkingMad on here. So happy our support helped.
Young 'arry never approaches Defendants outside, prior to hearings. He's not confident enough in my view. It's the arrogant third party legal reps who play that card.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD6 -
Umkomaas said:Fantastic result and a top class court report. We really do appreciate the feedback, so thank you very much for that. Hope your F-I-L can relax now that the OPS crap is behind him.
Well done @Molts, really pleased for you both.4 -
Coupon-mad said:Brilliant report!
What a result! I always felt this might be a difficult one to argue - not a shoo-in by any means - due to the photos we saw off-forum, but well done!Firstly I want to extend my utmost appreciation and thanks to C-M and a significant other (sorry I only know her real name, not her handle on here but if I find it out, I'll amend. You know who you are!) for their tremendous support and advice in what was likely to be a difficult case.She's @ParkingMad on here. So happy our support helped.
Young 'arry never approaches Defendants outside, prior to hearings. He's not confident enough in my view. It's the arrogant third party legal reps who play that card.3 -
Well done, great court report - wonderful to read that the judge shot down the "we haven't received the defendant's witness statement" rubbish!2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards