Observice Parking Consultancy - Defence Advice for Court Claim

easytry16

So here is how it went on the day of hearing:

As stated in the order, the court arranged for the call, they called me around 10mins before the hearing time and checked whether both claimant and defendants are on the call and are connected, judge explained the process, the claimant would be given the first chance to explain their claim followed by defendant to defend his case, none of them should intervene when other is speaking except the judge, then both claimant and defendant can cross question on what has been produced or stated followed by closing statement from both parties as to why the judge should consider their claim.

 Claimant's legal representative started with his claim stating that PCN was provided to the keeper of the vehicle for 'not parking in the demarcated bay', he said his client has terms and conditions with the landowners appended within the their witness statement and within these terms and conditions it clearly states that drivers not parking in the demarcated bay would receive a penalty notice. At this point judge stopped the claimant and asked him to explain what not parking in demarcated mean here , and he explained stating that demarcated bay is the one where there are white lines parallel to the bay and another white line horizontal i.e. at front of the bay, again the judge intervene here and said she can see from the photos provided by the defendant in his witness statement that clearly there are white line parallel to the bay and there are no signs on or adjacent to the bay stating you're not allowed to park here. She further stated that had she used this car park to park the car she wouldn't have realised that this bay is not for parking (at this point without me saying anything I felt little relived), judge asked the claimant to proceed, then claimant pointed out on the terms and conditions on the signs which states regarding not parking in the demarcated bay would attract penalty. Again, at this point the judge stopped the claimant and asked him whether he knows where these signs are? or whether these signs were added later on? as in the defendant WS he clearly shows two different signs with timescales from google street view quoted few signs were added after the material date.

Also, he pointed out on the sign the statement regarding fine and further costs that could be added, if the fees not paid within the stipulated timescales (maximum up to £300). He then pointed out that defendant failed to respond to the notice to keeper on several occasion (they had copies of these letters appended in their WS).

Furthermore, the claimant claimed that since the defendant had displayed a valid permit to park, clearly indicate that he was aware of the terms and conditions of the parking and hence was within the contract.

On the grounds of the clear signage, keeper failed to respond to notices and breach of contract the defendants case to be struck out. At this point, the judge asked the claimant about the global sum of £160, he explained it is £100 + £60 of their costs, the judge quoted from the claimant's WS that they have mentioned £160 as contractual costs and not global cost (at this point I did not understand the legal terms that were discussed, but at one point the claimant said we are happy to just get £100).

Now at this point, the judge asked me to explain what I had to say regarding my case, she also stated that I do not have to repeat anything stated in my WS as she has read it and has a copy in front. (I only received the claimant WS after I submitted mine to court, I had picked up a few points from their WS, and the fact the claimant was completely relying on the large sign from one of their exhibits, I decided focus my attention on this - again purely because I don't have any legal background so wanted to stay away from it and also I started to sense that the Judge is more focused on the ground facts).

I started with pointing to the sign that the claimant was referring to, I said I notice that the photos appended to the Claimant's witness statement are taken from all over the place.  This is irrelevant to where the car was parked. There are no houses in the vicinity with red bricks. Hence these specific photos do not substantiate the evidence of notices for the particular area in question. To my bad luck, Judge said she does not have a colour copy of the claimants WS (strange because they sent me colour copy and wonder why they sent non colour copy to the court).

I then pointed, to the large plan from their witness statement showing where the signs are located, I said  The signs shown on the plan are not on the access street leading to the car park entrance, the claimant is expecting the users of the underground car park to come outside and go on to the adjacent streets residential areas to check for the signs.

Another key point I highlighted from their WS, which they had quoted that due to gas room adjacent to this bay, for regulatory purpose it had to be kept clear at all times, I said, as stated by the claimant in their WS (quoted their line about keeping it clear) is dangerous and thus should have been clearly demarcated and signs put up so people would clearly know why not to park in the area. This is negligence of tort if there were to be any incident due to the area. The danger is stated by the claimant in their evidence presented. Lastly there are evidence that other people also park in these areas (referred to the exhibit from my WS) which is further proof that this is not clearly known by people even residing in the apartment. This is because the terms of conditions are not a part of the tenancy contract.

I concluded by saying that I did not breach any contract as there were no signs leading to this.
At this point, the claimant started cross questioning me, and he went on and on about why I did not respond to the letters, and also asked me how many times I have been to this car park, I said one at the material date and one in April to collect photos, he said why I did not mention this in my WS, I said what difference this would have made, because your claim is regarding me not parking in a demarcated bay (I am still not sure why he was stressing more on this then focusing on the signage, probably he felt he does not have legs to stand on this instead he chose to blame me for not responding to the letters). It was almost 50mins into the hearing at this stage and judge asked if I have any further questions to the claimant, I said I have more but I think I have provided sufficient proof that there were no signs suggesting not to park in the bay I had parked.
So we both claimant first had to provide his closing statement, which again he repeated the same that defendant failed to respond to the letters and not parked in the demarcated bay as clearly stated in the terms and conditions and on the signs. 
I concluded stating that it is evident that the bay has white lines and there no signage stating you're not allowed to park in that bay.
Judge said she has heard from both parties and read a long statement, at one point she said the contract exists (at this point I thought I lost it) and then she continued reading the statement and one point she said that as defendant pointed out there are white lines on the bay and also no signs suggesting you're not allowed to park in that bay. With all these evidences, the claimants claim is struck out.

I felt so good at this point of time. Then the judge talked about the costs and asked whether I had taken leave today, I said Yes but she said because it is telephone hearing, she would only award me half of the cost. I said ok, I asked whether I can get further costs stated within my schedule, at this point claimant said I may have to challenge that, Judge said the claimant did not act in a way ....something something...therefore I will not award to any further costs. To be honest I did not have any energy at this point to push this further, I said that is fine mam. Case End.

easytry16

I wished I had someone with me who had legal background, maybe the above would have been very different

easytry16

Ahh, another important thing the judge pointed out to the claimant, was that they only had dates on few photos only. SO photos with dates is very important.

Umkomaas

Thanks for your excellent account of your court case. A great win. Well done. A nasty bit off the sole of your shoe!

I wished I had someone with me who had legal background, maybe the above would have been very different

Maybe it would have - but the Claimant had someone with a legal background acting for them, and look what that resulted in!  Be careful what you wish for! 😏. You did just fine fella. 👍

Le_Kirk

Good report, thanks for that.  Cannot see the logic of the judge awarding half the cost because it was a telephone hearing - you still had to take leave from work with loss of pay!

Coupon-mad

easytry16 said:

I wished I had someone with me who had legal background, maybe the above would have been very different

You did brilliantly and even got half a day's costs, whereas many Judges at my local Courts in Sussex never allow costs.  It could have gone no better, IMHO.  Well done!  ANOTHER OPC ONE BITES THE DUST!

beamerguy

Well done, great result.

OPC and DCBL FAILED.  was the legal from DCBL or one of those "rent by the hour" freshman they tend to send.
The fault is DCBL as they should have known ... had they done their homework and not just a robo claim, they could have advised OPC it was a non starter.

How daft was the legal rep saying you did not reply to letters. I think when these Judges get together, they must giggle at some of these legals for bringing timewasting cases to their court

  

easytry16

Le_Kirk said:

Good report, thanks for that.  Cannot see the logic of the judge awarding half the cost because it was a telephone hearing - you still had to take leave from work with loss of pay!

Maybe she assumed that there was no need to take full day off, half a day would have been fine. The court order did state that the case is anticipated to last 1hour. Maybe that's why she offered half the sum. But for someone like me with no legal background (except what I learnt on this forum) I just needed a win.

easytry16

Coupon-mad said:

easytry16 said:

I wished I had someone with me who had legal background, maybe the above would have been very different

You did brilliantly and even got half a day's costs, whereas many Judges at my local Courts in Sussex never allow costs.  It could have gone no better, IMHO.  Well done!  ANOTHER OPC ONE BITES THE DUST!

Thanks Coupon-mad, you and all other members in this forum are doing an excellent job helping people like me. Your help is much much appreciated.

nosferatu1001

Oh wow, they did so badly there. You did brilliantly. Desperately trying to claim repeated visits so you must have somehow known....desperation.