CEL COURT HEARING NOW BEING HEARD OVER TELEPHONE DUE TO COVID 19 PANDEMIC.

ncw2509

Thanks Coupon Mad - not long to wait now.  Just dotting the i's crossing the t's and then we're good to go. 
WIll keep everyone updated as to the outcome either way . 

henrik777

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/04/08/the-trial-will-go-on-judge-rejects-argument-that-five-week-trial-had-to-be-adjourned-because-of-covid-19/

Trials are continuing in some courts. (should be nearly all)

ncw2509

 :'(  OH well, DJ found in the claimants favour..
He awarded the cost of the PCN, but disallowed the debt recovery charges and interest to be passed  onto the defendant. So £255 down to £150 (£100 pcn and £50 costs)
DJ considered that there is only one grace period during parking -  he did not consider that the COP grace period is one at both the beginning and end of parking as we had interpreted, and been led to believe.  
Their legal rep had intepreted the grace periods as being 10 minutes within the 2 hour parking period - i.e. you have 1 hr 50 mins free parking and then 10 minutes grace upto 2 hours...!!!(Joke)
DJ said that the claim for debt recovery was a figure that didn't exist and was not evidenced , therefore disallowed. He referenced the stated cases we had evidenced in our WS re abuse of process (DJ Taylor, DJ Jones-Evans, DJ Gibson, DJ Grand) but admitted he had not had the opportunity to look at the cases so couldn't comment or apply that rule!! 
Landowner authority  - we stated that the claimant had not provided proof that they had authority to operate on the land - their legal rep said that they did not have to provide that information to the defendant , and had the hearing been heard in a courtroom, then that information would have been available on the day for the DJ to see. DJ accepted this. 
Very disppointed to say the least.. 2 mins 46 second overstay = £150.

nosferatu1001

OK thats rubbish. The DJ accepted that the claiant could ambush a defendant?!

Le_Kirk

Wow, poor result!  According to that then, just because it was a telephone hearing the claimant does not have to provide EVIDENCE to back up the WITNESS STATEMENT!!!  Not to mention the claimant's legal rep's interpretation of the grace periods which the judge accepted presumably.

D_P_Dance

... but admitted he had not had the opportunity to look at the cases so couldn't comment or apply that rule!! 

IMO he should have made time.  I would report this to the MOJ.  

 and had the hearing been heard in a courtroom, then that information would have been available on the day 

If it was not available, why was the hearing not postponed?  If there is no contract, hoe csn there be a breach of contract?.  

IMO you have been shafted OP. 

ncw2509

The legal rep was useless - diddn;t make any contributions apart from the ridiculous comment on grace periods.  The judge didn't comment on that, but just referred to the evidence referred to by us as in the COP:
"13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
and
"13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
He said that a minimum of 10 minutes could actually mean 15, but he was not in a position to offer these terms, that would be down to CEL!

Fruitcake

Normally a loss will cost £175 -£200 so you got a discount of £25, the cost of the court filing fee. You cost the scammers more than £150 so don't be too downhearted.

Whilst the judge didn't read the abuse of process information, he did disallow fake add on costs.
Well done anyway. 'Twas a valiant effort, but I truly believe you were at a disadvantage by not having a public hearing. because you could have insisted they prove the point about landowner authority.

I think you may have grounds for appeal if you are up for it because the judge appears to have made procedural errors by discounting your evidence.

You can ask for an audio copy if it was recorded under the new emergency CPR.

Do make a significant complaint to your MP about this unregulated scam as well as a serious complaint to the landowner.

Redx

I think this example now shows the dangers of telephone hearings , due to a lack of paperwork like landowner contracts

To me the judge erred in law by not checking or not adjourning the case

To say that a breach of contract occurred with the landowner contract missing beggars belief , the onus is on the claimant to prove their claim

D_P_Dance

Do make a significant complaint to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Better still make a  complaint against the judge