Judge Rinder is rather interesting this afternoon ....

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

Summed up far better than I, beamer, however not sure if they needed to invoke POFA12 as I get the feeling she fessed up to being driver from the off .... Although it wasn't specifically mentioned ..... Because, clueless all round!

The lady probably did not know about POFA, most only get to know when they come here.
It's not the lady that worries me, it's Rinder's apparent lack of POFA knowledge that is concerning because he could have reduced the amount by about £1200 for the fake add-ons.    Meaning that ITV paid the parking company some £1200 in scam money

D_P_Dance

Are you saying that a judge should not satisfy themself that a contract existed?  That they just accept the word of a known scammer?  

NeilCr

Half_way said:

How binding is judge Rinder on the defendant? 

Binding, apparently

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-11-25/judge-rinder-filming-location-court-room/

I've seen the same comments by a solicitor

Win, win for the lady I'd say

Here are the solicitor's comments

However, in relation to your specific point about enforceability, it’s important to understand that the “order” of the “judge” (the arbitrator) is actually an “award”.

In arbitration terms, an award is a legally enforceable decision. That means that if it is not complied with, the party in whose favour the award was given has the right to apply to the Court to have it enforced.

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

Are you saying that a judge should not satisfy themself that a contract existed?  That they just accept the word of a known scammer?  

Have a watch, see what you think

beamerguy

NeilCr said:

Half_way said:

How binding is judge Rinder on the defendant? 

Win, win for the lady I'd say

Well yes, ITV picked up the bill.

It was the parking company who took the case to court, maybe they think it will be a new tool in the book. Imagine one of their rookie reps saying to a County Court judge ..... because Judge Rinder says so ?

g0wfv

beamerguy said:

The lady probably did not know about POFA, most only get to know when they come here.

It's not the lady that worries me, it's Rinder's apparent lack of POFA knowledge that is concerning because he could have reduced the amount by about £1200 for the fake add-ons.    Meaning that ITV paid the parking company some £1200 in scam money

Judges don't know every in and out of the law despite what you think, that's why you have to present (and prove) your case to them ..... And then they judge!

Had POFA12 been a factor and presented in court, Rinder would have to familiarise himself with it to make a judgement.

Had the contract with the Landlord to raise parking charges been contested, proof would have been sought.

Had the tenancy agreement allocating two spots been produced alongside relevant precedent (Jopson v Homeguard would suffice I believe?) then she could have argued that tenancy trumps the PPCs signs.

Without any of that happening, he had to make a judgement based on what was before him which was only the signs and the tickets.

D_P_Dance said:

Are you saying that a judge should not satisfy themself that a contract existed?  That they just accept the word of a known scammer?  

Rinder took the uncontested word of the PPC that they had permission to charge. As such there was no need for the contract to be produced as evidence. He's impartial and passing judgment on what's put before him, just like he sympathised with the defendant, but the courts don't deal with the heart, just cold hard facts that are proven (or in this case not contested!)

g0wfv

Well !!!!!! me, I just watched the first 5 minutes which I missed, and the letting agreement was produced.  

Beamer - I concede, partially - Rinder's judgement was still correct on the basis of what he was presented however had the precedent been adduced in support of the defence, it should have gone in her favour instead!

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

beamerguy said:

The lady probably did not know about POFA, most only get to know when they come here.

It's not the lady that worries me, it's Rinder's apparent lack of POFA knowledge that is concerning because he could have reduced the amount by about £1200 for the fake add-ons.    Meaning that ITV paid the parking company some £1200 in scam money

Judges don't know every in and out of the law despite what you think, that's why you have to present (and prove) your case to them ..... And then they judge!

Had POFA12 been a factor and presented in court, Rinder would have to familiarise himself with it to make a judgement.

The simple answer to that is Rinder knew it was about parking issues and should have familiarised himself with parking laws. POFA2012 is the obvious one

In the Southampton case, Judge Taylor had familiarised himself hence the claim was struck out

g0wfv

beamerguy said:

The simple answer to that is Rinder knew it was about parking issues and should have familiarised himself with parking laws. POFA2012 is the obvious one

POFA12 was never once mentioned. Aswhich led me to opine the Defendant had in all probability fessed up to being the driver from the get go - she didn't know the system as we do -therefore POFA12 wasn't a factor - the PPC probably went after the driver without relying on that piece of legislation.

The fact is that this went in favour of the PPC, like it or lump it, because the defendant failed to sufficiently prove her case with the letting agreement being allocated 2 spaces without mention of permits and PPCs, alongside relevant persuasive precedent pointing out that in the past, higher courts have ruled in favour of the Defendant in this circumstance.

As much as we hate these vultures, if the defendant fails to produce sufficient evidence and precedent to support their case, they're going to lose ....

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

Well !!!!!! me, I just watched the first 5 minutes which I missed, and the letting agreement was produced.  

Beamer - I concede, partially - Rinder's judgement was still correct on the basis of what he was presented however had the precedent been adduced in support of the defence, it should have gone in her favour instead!

This is not so much about the agreement, it is Rinder's apparent lack of knowledge regarding POFA2012.
A simple calculation by him would or should have resulted with questions about the amounts above £100 per ticket.  It simply means that ITV have paid some £1200 to a company who are not entitled to it