We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

17810121323

Comments

  • I'm sure she would have done if she'd thought that was a requirement. Ah, imagine a world where all this stuff is clear and regulated, what a day that would be...
    Having to pay for a stay in a ‘Pay & Display’ car park... fancy that.
  • Snakes_Belly
    Snakes_Belly Posts: 3,704 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Well it was a surprise when it happened to me, so yes, fancy that. I didn't have to pay in the end though did I? Why could that possibly have been... You sound like another Gavin Price. That's the whole point of this forum, something that you will never grasp.
    They won't grasp it because they are of a different mindset. Fortunately not everyone thinks like them which is why the PMB gained cross party support and made it on to the statute books. 

    The new CoP and the Pandemic will have a dramatic effect on these companies and many will not survive. They have though bought this on themselves and are architects of their own fate.     

     

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • henrik777
    henrik777 Posts: 3,054 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper

    HHJ Simpkiss ruled that the Appellant could not succeed on the contractual costs argument, because that hadn't been pleaded in their claim particulars. He said that Ms W had not behaved unreasonably regarding the first hearing, but that she should have withdrawn her support for the DDJ's findings of fraud and dishonesty at the appeal stage


    That's quite a finding. Essentially it's unreasonable behaviour to agree with a judge.

    Well i assume it was unreasonable behaviour that was used to justify going outside the small claim track normal costs.
  • Johnersh
    Johnersh Posts: 1,562 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 25 May 2021 at 9:43PM
    It's not an odd finding. It's the rules.

    Gotta plead your arguments. Big boys court - rules will be enforced.  Conversely I was appalled at the latitude shown to a ppc who were represented and hardly deserving of the flexibility that is often provided to litigants in person. 

    Once appealed you're back to litigation risk - the claim can be lost. You are then exposed to costs risk. 

    Easy to say with hindsight but I think this is a classic case of winning too well, which makes an appeal much more likely to succeed (a bit like the time my costs were awarded to me with just a 2% reduction).  I didn't get to hang onto that either. 
  • henrik777
    henrik777 Posts: 3,054 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I don't think it's unreasonable for a LIP to take a judges view. It might be unwise but "unreasonable behaviour"

    Given contractual costs are out, and Akhtar, it must have been unreasonable behaviour costs.
  • I see that there is now a ‘Go Fund Me’ page to raise funds for the motorist.
    One would have thought the her ‘legal advisers’ would have the necessary insurance to cover her in such an event; looks like she been led up the garden path and let down.
    I feel that it’s crazy that the begging bowl is being pass around, when the motorist should have just accepted that they failed to pay for her parking and paid the initial £60 i.e members of the public now being ask to chip in for the consequences of someone’s tariff dodging.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.3K Life & Family
  • 258.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.