Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

nicestrawb

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...

beamerguy

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 service 

AnotherForumite

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...

Having to pay for a stay in a ‘Pay & Display’ car park... fancy that.

nicestrawb

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.

Snakes_Belly

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.

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.     

 

henrik777

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 He said that Ms W had not behaved unreasonably regarding the first hearing, but that she should have withdrawn her support for the DDJ's findings of fraud and dishonesty at the appeal stage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

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

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.

bargepole

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.

AnotherForumite

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.