Judge Rinder is rather interesting this afternoon ....

g0wfv

POFA12 does not set limits on charges nor does it deal with recovery of the charge directly from the driver ....

(Sorry posted too soon!)

In fact Rinder dealt with the charges at £100 each,  plus costs in each instance for debt recovery at £60 per ticket. 35 tickets (14 on hold, so 21 claimed) which was the maximum allowable by the IPC CoC which wasn't contested either.

I agree, awful for the defendant and not what we would have wanted either, but in the light of the case presented and the woeful defence, the only judgement he could make.

KeithP

g0wfv said:

POFA12 does not set limits on charges....

POFA12 para 4(5) states:

(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

fb1969

Points to remember.

Robert Rinder is a Criminal Barrister, he is not and never has been a "judge".  His expertise is in criminal cases, I have read that he gets advice from suitably qualified people when it comes to most of his cases which usually revolve around contract law (so he was just the face of their ignorance).  I also remember reading that ITV underwrite the cases to £5000, which I take to read that ITV pay the money and not the "defendant". 

It is all a sham set up to make entertainment (as that is apparently what it is) in this case it was actually farce - so no real surprise that it was an IPC company involved.  About the only correct point made was that they were Parking Charge Notices and not fines - despite this the "defendant" continued to call them that.

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

POFA12 does not set limits on charges nor does it deal with recovery of the charge directly from the driver ....

(Sorry posted too soon!)

In fact Rinder dealt with the charges at £100 each,  plus costs in each instance for debt recovery at £60 per ticket. 35 tickets (14 on hold, so 21 claimed) which was the maximum allowable by the IPC CoC which wasn't contested either.

I agree, awful for the defendant and not what we would have wanted either, but in the light of the case presented and the woeful defence, the only judgement he could make.

As Keith has demonstrated POFA does set limits as do the Supreme court

Yes, Rinder ruled on both the ticket amount plus debt recovery costs. Thus proving that Rinder  does not understand POFA2012 ....... IE: Rinder did not do his home,work and erred and cost ITV an extra £1200

beamerguy

fb1969 said:

Points to remember.

Robert Rinder is a Criminal Barrister, he is not and never has been a "judge".  His expertise is in criminal cases, I have read that he gets advice from suitably qualified people when it comes to most of his cases which usually revolve around contract law (so he was just the face of their ignorance).  I also remember reading that ITV underwrite the cases to £5000, which I take to read that ITV pay the money and not the "defendant". 

It is all a sham set up to make entertainment (as that is apparently what it is) in this case it was actually farce - so no real surprise that it was an IPC company involved.  About the only correct point made was that they were Parking Charge Notices and not fines - despite this the "defendant" continued to call them that.

Yes, Rob Rinder is a barrister and not a judge. If he is taking advice then it's pretty poor if that advice cannot advise him about the law, in this case POFA2012 ?
If you have ever been to county court, you will know that a real judge would never make comments like "I can smell a lie like a fa*t in a lift. "  ........ that is the joke of Judge Rinder the Soap, That's fine for an afternoon laugh but when he is ignorant of the law, that is a different matter

fb1969

beamerguy said:

If you have ever been to county court, you will know that a real judge would never make comments like "I can smell a lie like a fa*t in a lift. "  ........ that is the joke of Judge Rinder the Soap, That's fine for an afternoon laugh but when he is ignorant of the law, that is a different matter

Quite often on this forum and Pepipoo posters have to be told/reassured that the County Court is nothing like a criminal court - yet the programme tries to portray it in the way people expect an actual court to be.

In the same way that letters from DCBL will mention them being "as seen on tv" I wouldn't be surprised if the parking company today use their appearance to their benefit.  And in turn that will cause some to feel threatened and just pay up.  Well done ITV for giving the PPC industry some sort of standing or status that it really doesn't have, not only that but it was to an IPC company!  

beamerguy

fb1969 said:

beamerguy said:

If you have ever been to county court, you will know that a real judge would never make comments like "I can smell a lie like a fa*t in a lift. "  ........ that is the joke of Judge Rinder the Soap, That's fine for an afternoon laugh but when he is ignorant of the law, that is a different matter

Quite often on this forum and Pepipoo posters have to be told/reassured that the County Court is nothing like a criminal court - yet the programme tries to portray it in the way people expect an actual court to be.

In the same way that letters from DCBL will mention them being "as seen on tv" I wouldn't be surprised if the parking company today use their appearance to their benefit.  And in turn that will cause some to feel threatened and just pay up.  Well done ITV for giving the PPC industry some sort of standing or status that it really doesn't have, not only that but it was to an IPC company!  

Just like the Rovers Return in corri, the Rinder court is a TV studio set. A real county court judge will be booted and suited, not in fancy dress as in Rinder. 

DCBL is another issue, they play games with their soap opera which is meaningless as long as those reading this forum carefully listen

g0wfv

4(5) does not set limits on CHARGES; it sets limits on the LIABILITY that can be transferred to the keeper.  If reasonable costs are incurred if the keeper then does not pay, those costs can then be added onto the claim when it comes to court, the key phrase however is "reasonable costs" - anyone bringing a claim is entitled to do this.

The only limits on charges are set by IPC and BPA codes of conduct (and possibly previous cases setting precedent?) - something is pinging in my head about other legislation controlling this also, but can't quite put my mind to it .... It's been a while ...

As I said though I doubt the PPC even had to relay on POFA12 as the defendant was in no way as savvy as folks on this forum though. She wasn't even close to knowing what she was doing. Hence she lost in the most tremendous fashion.

It's all played for entertainment anyway.; Rinder isn't even a judge (as has been stated and as is stated in the opening credits!) And yeah, it's not set up anything like a County Court room.

beamerguy

To confirm what KeithP said above
POFA12 para 4(5) states:
(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

To confirm the conclusion of judges
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

To confirm the ruling of the Supreme court
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
No difference to an "all inclusive" package holiday to Benidorm

Both the BPA and IPC codes of practice applies only to members of either ATA. Both are not laws and a motorist cannot be bound by them by virtue of the fact that there is no contract with the motorist

I must admit g0wfv, you do have the mindset of a PPC

g0wfv

Actually, there's no need to be insulting now, is there, beamerguy?  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate the way these vultures work as much as you and wish they were absolutely outlawed, but they're not!

Why do PPCs after 8 years of this legislation being in effect still claim these figures as they do? I'm assuming that as this matter is far from resolved as to what is allowable and what isn't.

I'm presuming the added sums are because they're costs incurred due to  "conduct of the paying party" - that conduct being that we simply refuse to pay forcing a PPC to seek other means of recovery and therefore allowable "reasonable costs" which are expressly allowable in small claims cases (CPR Rules and Directions, Part 44).

(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party

Unfortunately for us, this means that if those additional sums can be framed as being within the bounds of "reasonable costs", they will continue to be claimed. We have to persuade the judge otherwise, hence your quote ... it didn't come from a judge's quote in a case but from someone's defence formed on this forum in the hopes it will persuade a judge that the costs incurred chasing the liability have been inflated unfairly - it serves as absolutely less than zero precedent in court. Has it had its intended effect? Maybe? Probably? But has it actually been stated by a judge that this phrasing was the entire reason they disallowed the sum claimed? I doubt it. (At least I've not seen anything to that effect!)

Beamer, It's clear were not going to agree on this, but neither of us is a judge (are we?) Neither of our interpretation counts for anything! Mindset of a PPC or not, I'm being a realist - I'll try anything in an attempt to avoid these charges - the PPC will try anything to make us pay these charges. If we don't think like a PPC how can we beat the vultures?!

Back to the original subject of the thread - Rinder's judgement (as much as it sucked) was correct based on what was presented to him. Had it been one of us in the defendant's shoes, undoubtedly the PPC would now be out of pocket, however the defendant in this show was very naive to the point of being clueless and failed entirely to prove her case.