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
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...{Signature removed by Forum Team - if you are not sure why we have removed your signature, it's probably Gladstones}7
-
In my opinion, DJ Harvey did the right thing and went down a path that other judges fear to go down. The county court system needs a huge shake-up as the public deserve a professional service6
-
nicestrawb said: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...1
-
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.{Signature removed by Forum Team - if you are not sure why we have removed your signature, it's probably Gladstones}6
-
nicestrawb said: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.
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.4 -
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
Well i assume it was unreasonable behaviour that was used to justify going outside the small claim track normal costs.4 -
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.4 -
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.1 -
HHJ Simpkiss said that the original DDJ had gone beyond his remit in finding that the Claimant's documents (landowner authority and lease) were 'a sham and a fraud on the public'. They were certainly of dubious provenance, but he shouldn't have gone that far.
The skeleton for the appeal hearing, with input from myself and others, sought to uphold all of the original Judgment. In hindsight, perhaps it shouldn't have.
So at the costs hearing, he said that while the OP hadn't behaved unreasonably at first instance, she and/or her barrister should not have maintained that position in the appeal hearing, and this had caused the Appellant to have 'no choice but to appeal', and to engage an experienced counsel of 5+ years' call.
So he awarded the Appellant around half their claimed costs for that instance of unreasonable behaviour, as he saw it.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.5 -
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.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

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