Judge Rinder is rather interesting this afternoon ....

MothballsWallet

Judge Romesh on UKTV (Dave) is a similar entertainment court show, but is glaringly obviously a comedy.
And as legally accurate as Judge Rinder.

bargepole

Coupon-mad said:

I'd quite like to suggest you ask for an 'appeal' to be heard (for the purposes of righting a wrong on the show) with one of us as your lay rep...if Judge Rinder would allow our Rights of Audience, so to speak, it not being a real trial or real appeal. 

I think that would be a bad move - not that I've ever seen a previous decision 'appealed' on Judge Rinder.

By losing the case, and getting ITV to pay the Judgment amount, the D has no further liability to the PPC.

But if Rinder had found in favour of the D, and dismissed the claim, there would have been nothing to stop the PPC having another go in a real court.

ParkingMad

Does this mean that the PPC can't pursue the remaining 14 (?) PCNs in future?

Coupon-mad

gc1996 said:

No I didn't pay the PPC a penny. I obviously can't speak for the experiences of others, but to me he was very kind and had a lot of nice things to say. If the court was based on morals, no doubt I'd have won, however it's not and i had no chance.

I knew that from the start of the case.

But you should have done, because Judge Rinder failed to consider the CRA 2015.    We are not saying that you should have won due to morality.  We sare saying he erred in law.

He asked 'Dale' whether the debt collection sums were in the t&cs?  Dale said ''yes''. 

Judge Rinder said ''that's alright then'' even though he'd SEEN the t&cs (the sign, that was white on black writing) earlier on the screen...and it did not state an added £60 for each PCN.

Even if it had done, a parking firm still can't add any sums to £100 parking charge, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198, the P/Eye v Somerfield High Court case para 419 and the POFA. 

...and the test of fairness being fundamentally exposed by the fact that Jake's firm issues (withheld from you) the permits, and Jake's firm issues the PCNs too.  That irony seemed to fly over Robert Rinder's head, and it's not just irony, it's in the CRA Schedule 2 'terms that are likely to be unfair' = the entire sums (£100 plus the added £60 sums) were unenforceable.

At most, the first PCN of £100 was allowable in law.

BTW it's Phoenix Parking Ltd.  Bet they are proud of what they did there...fail to provide a permit when there was a clear indicator that this was a staff member...and instead issue 35 x £100 fake fines.

Coupon-mad

ParkingMad said:

Does this mean that the PPC can't pursue the remaining 14 (?) PCNs in future?

They dropped them, so they can't.

Maybe we apply to the show and re-run a case where the right issues are looked at.  But do you know what, I have more important things to do!

zhonguonuren

But if Rinder had found in favour of the D, and dismissed the claim, there would have been nothing to stop the PPC having another go in a real court.

Aren’t the parties in a contract with ITV to forgo further legal action? 

I shall complain to ITV about this one. 

Scrapit

hang on, no one is complaining corrie isn't very realistic, why is this getting scrutiny?

MistyZ

gc1996 said:

MistyZ said:

I think the PPC has already been named online - I googled.

Sorry you were used in this way but don't beat yourself up.  Glad the charges were paid for you, at least.

By who? Have you got a link for that?
Thank you I appreciate that!

The link I found was the same one that beamerguy posted below this question.  I expect you've found it by now though!