PCN - Witness statement advise

Coupon-mad

That is unfair and most Judges would not have been impressed by that argument.  I would pay it and move on, sadly.

BA1987

Coupon-mad said:

That is unfair and most Judges would not have been impressed by that argument.  I would pay it and move on, sadly.

Thats fine (but i'm highly annoyed by this outcome honestly), is there anything i can do or can be used  as lessons learned in this case for others?
I don't want anyone else to get to a position like did. It seemed I lost the case without even entering the court room and i know for a fact she hadn't look at any of the evidence at all. 

Coupon-mad

I am annoyed for you as well.  Generally you'd expect a Judge to have read both WS and evidence files, before the hearing.

Can you give us the Judge's name and the court it was at, as a warning to others in the court area?

BA1987

Coupon-mad said:

I am annoyed for you as well.  Generally you'd expect a Judge to have read both WS and evidence files, before the hearing.

Can you give us the Judge's name and the court it was at, as a warning to others in the court area?

Yes for sure.... I don't have the judges name,.... but it was reading and slough county courts. 
Once i find out the judges name i will put it in this chat. The reviews now for this court are absolutely diabolical. if there if anything specific i can prvide now or in the future im more than happy to do so. I am soooo annoyed with this outcome Im more than happy to provide absolutely anything to take these people down.   

BA1987

So i finally got some information on the matter. The judge was Judge Lynch of reading, slough and high wycombe county court. From my understanding she gave them everything they asked for without question the matter at all.
I have a random few question concerning the matter -
1) I haven't received the paperwork concerning the order yet but am expected to pay 21 days from the hearing . is that normal?
2) the judge refused permission to appeal the judgement. does that mean i cant appeal at all?
3) Is there 0 chance that an appeal can be lodged on the ground of quantum and the consumer rights act 2015 inflated claim and the misinformation concerning saying that the court above theres has now set a precedent for the courts that they have to follow?
4)do you think there is 0 point of appealing this matter further? 

Mickey666

Reading this sorry tale makes me wonder if the courts are getting fed up with all these appeals wasting their time over a paltry £60.  I understand there are principles at stake but having read a few of these ‘sagas’ it seems that fighting for these principles is such an expensive and time-consuming business that I wonder if it’s not just easier to pay up in the first place.
I wonder how much time the OP has spent on preparing their defence, how much time they have spent worrying and how many sleepless nights they’ve endured, all to ultimately fail in saving £60.  Is it really worth it?
And I say that as someone who once successfully fought off an incorrectly issued parking ticket by a Westminster Council parking warden.  It took a lot of time and effort, for which no costs could be claimed.  I doubt I’d bother again and would just pay the reduced amount immediately and move on.  Life is too short for this sort of nonsense.

BA1987

@Mickey666 i can understand that pov but at the same time its ridiculous someone just do this and get away with it. you have to ask yourself where does it stop. If you consider the overall amount and logic behind it if people don't take out there time rules and things just get worse and worse. there is no justice and your admitting that you have no control. it might be looked at as just a ticket today but after it becomes a greater issue later on. 

Coupon-mad

Clearly this Judge misdirected herself about the quantum that she has always disallowed in the past, because she misunderstood the effect of the Salisbury Appeal which did NOT decide either way whether adding costs was allowed. 

But you'd be spending £110 in court fees to query the quantum that added £60.  She was WRONG but...

I recall @bargepole did this court report about DJ Lynch (clearly a very difficult Judge - read the below) and look what she said about the £60 add-on in April:

Claim No. F1GF9E6W + 5 others, PCM (UK) -v- Ms S, before Deputy District Judge Lynch
There was a total of some £4,200 at stake across the six claims, involving 21 x PCNs, all issued on the private road of the D’s residential estate. This is the same location that Bull and 2 others won their case in 2016.

The first three claims had been adjourned from Feb 7th, where the DDJ had ordered the C to file copies of Annie Clark’s passport, driving licence, and contract of employment.  Gladstones had provided certified documentation, but there were still some issues...
Two days before the hearing, the Court had asked for a full copy of the lease and plan, rather than just the Schedule setting out the terms of parking. This was emailed to the Court and Gladstones on Monday evening, and on Tuesday a Supplementary Witness Statement was filed and served by Gladstones. This arrived in the form of a Word document, from which it was possible to determine from the meta-data that it had been created that morning by author Russell Thomson (Eclipse Legal Systems), and had been edited at 11:22am by Juwayrirah Hussain, one of Gladstones’ solicitors.

It was clear, therefore, that Ms Oliver could not possibly have had any involvement in the statement, and could not have signed it in that timescale. I filed and served a preliminary skeleton pointing out the fact that it was clearly a false instrument, and that it was likely that she had had no involvement in any of the previous witness statements. I invited the Court to strike out all of the C’s statements for the six claims, and dismiss them all for lack of evidence. The Court was further invited to make a finding of contempt of court against the C, and/or Gladstones.

I made this preliminary submission, but the DDJ was not with me on any of it. She said that 95% of statements are not written by the signatory, and electronic signatures are commonly accepted. She did not consider it significant that the first three were signed as Clark when her name was legally Oliver, people often use more than one name. So we moved on to the Defence arguments.
I argued that the Lease made no provision for penalties, and that any breach of the terms could only be in trespass, which only the Landowner could sue for. The DDJ disagreed, and said that Land Law was her speciality. The main lease only allowed lessees to pass and repass on the roadway, but not to stop. Therefore, the terms of the lease had been breached, and it also stated that the freeholder was entitled to appoint agents to enforce the terms.

I then referred to the previous Judgment of DJ Glen in the Bull case. She accepted that this situation was distinguishable from Beavis, but noted that the lease had not been in evidence in that case. She therefore was not persuaded by it.

The next point was the lack of planning and advertising consent for the signage, but the DDJ said that as this was an unadopted road, they didn’t need any.  It wasn’t going too well at this point, but then the C’s advocate got a hard time as well.

The 6 claim forms referred to 21 different PCNs, but the DDJ could only find evidence of 13 different dates. Some had clearly been duplicated, and it was ruled that 8 of the charges were struck out.

She also struck out all of the £60 add-ons, saying that she never awards those, and most Judges now recognise that these are not recoverable.

So Judgment for Claimant in the sum of 13 x £100 = £1,300, then we got on to fixed costs.  For each claim, there was a £60 filing fee and £60 solicitor fee. I argued that these should be reduced as the court had consolidated the claims. The DDJ found that two claims had been issued on the same date, so disallowed one lot, leaving £650, and one hearing fee of £80.   She also added interest at 2%, an extra £26.

The Claimant’s barrister also wanted £1,716.66 in costs for unreasonable behaviour, given that we had caused the Claimant extra work by challenging the provenance of the witness statements. I argued that it was in fact the Claimant who had behaved unreasonably, by filing false statements. The DDJ said that both sides were capable of being criticised, but she wasn’t going to award any costs.
So the Defendant must pay a total of £2,056 by 21 May. This is less than half of what was being claimed, but disappointing in that with a different Judge, we may have got a different result. 

Such is the lottery of small claims.

 

Mickey666

BA1987 said:

@Mickey666 i can understand that pov but at the same time its ridiculous someone just do this and get away with it. you have to ask yourself where does it stop. If you consider the overall amount and logic behind it if people don't take out there time rules and things just get worse and worse. there is no justice and your admitting that you have no control. it might be looked at as just a ticket today but after it becomes a greater issue later on. 

Yes, that's the dilemma isn't it?  And probably what the parking scammers rely on to a large extent.  Seems we're damned if we fight and damned if we don't    The investment required to fight means we can't really win anyway.  Who was it who said 'choose your battles carefully'?

Perhaps a nationwide campaign to boycott all private car parks would have more effect?

Coupon-mad

The better nationwide campaign is already bearing fruit, which is why we have the new 2019 law and the PAS232 being drafted, so that the Government are taking control (of sorts) if they get the regulatory framework to actually have some teeth.