County court claim, what to do now?

Coupon-mad

Wonderful news - ANOTHER PARKINGEYE ONE BITES THE DUST!

Can you come back with a 'court report', blow by blow, telling us who said what, who attended and in what way these signs were seen as less clear than in Beavis (which car park was it again, and which court and Judge)?

flateric2002

Well I can tell what happened best I can remember.
Parked at Doncaster Keepmoat Stadium in the permit holders only car park to watch a charity football match.
Heard by phone via Doncaster court.
Don't recall the judges name.
Parking Eye used an advocate so we were unable to ask any questions, judge took this into account.
PEA read out their statement & said we never provided proof of attending a match, we were only parked for 58 minutes so not long enough for a football match. There was adequate signage as shown in there photos, and that it was reasonable that an ordinary driver would have seen them.
We were then allowed to put our defence across. 
We started by saying that PE never requested any proof of watching a charity football match & if they had we would have provided it. Then referring to our photos taken in january pointing out that their photos were from 2016 before the trees had grown in front of the entrance sign. The judge noted my photo was NOT taken from a car view so wasn't proof of obscured view, to which I told him I would happily drive up now & take a fresh picture from the car view.
he the turned to the defence submitted & said PEA had mentioned to him that it was an internet defence. We said we had had some help with the defence statement to which he asked if we understood everything in it. My partner honestly told him no, we didn't as it was very technical in places.
He then asked if the main point of our defence was unclear signage. We said it was but also the bays in which we were parked were unmarked & unrestricted. 
He asked what we meant & we explained it as the bay we were pared in was outside the perimeter of signs, so free to park.
He then aske PEA if there were any more questions & she said no.
He then went over everything that had been said, making point that the entrance sign photo provided by us wasn't conclusive although it did show foliage growing, but their photograph was 4 years old & it was up to them to prove that it was still visible with a more recent picture. He then went on to say where we drove, to the left were 2 signs facing us, but set back quite a way & quite high up, and there were 3 signs to our right, facing away from us. When we turned right at the top & parked in the space near the corner, he noted there wasn't a single sign we would be able to see telling us it was permit holders only. He then referred to my photograph of the football pitch fencing that has the doncaster sports sign & said if there was signage on here, it would be very different, but the 15 or so spaces in the row where the defendant parked show no clear signage of permit holders only & for that reason i dismiss the case.
Then said he doesn't see any reason to award any costs and did we have any questions. 
We said no & thankyou & that was that.

flateric2002

oh, he did also comment that when we initially appealed and gave the reason of being at a charity football match, that a company as large as parking eye should have ended it there instead of dragging it through court. 

Redx

flateric2002 said:

oh, he did also comment that when we initially appealed and gave the reason of being at a charity football match, that a company as large as parking eye should have ended it there instead of dragging it through court. 

Brilliant , yet another win this week , be in double figures by weekend !! 😁😁😁

A great report too

D_P_Dance

They have wasted your time, now consider wasting theirs, read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Why no costs?

Le_Kirk

Excellent, another win today!

Umkomaas

Terrific result. The forum is on a bit of a roll this week. 😊