Court Claim received, need a little reassurance that I'm in the right direction

Coupon-mad

imagine reading through my WS and then saying I disagree after each paragraph and that’s what his judgement was like, barely any explanation. Aside from skimming over Salisbury of course. 

I feel infuriated for you and can only think that this might be a new Deputy District Judge, drafted in to help clear up the huge backlog of cases in your area.  There are lots like that this year and we get the impression some of them have never handled a parking firm case before. 

They are local solicitors, and the only case law they will know about is Beavis, and unless they see cases like this all the time (as most District Judges do) they just don't get it....this is a diabolical decision, especially about the costs added when there was no finding of unreasonable conduct against you.

Even an obiter comment (para 419) from the Somerfield case from the High Court is persuasive upon the lower courts, and you quoted it in your WS, so if he read that paragraph from HHJ Hegarty, the £60 should never have been allowed.  Nor should the Claimant's attendance costs.

I am so sorry that this Judge got it wrong. 
It sounds like none of us would have won in front of that Judge and I am so sorry it was you.

robertcox999

Coupon-mad said:

imagine reading through my WS and then saying I disagree after each paragraph and that’s what his judgement was like, barely any explanation. Aside from skimming over Salisbury of course. 

I feel infuriated for you and can only think that this might be a new Deputy District Judge, drafted in to help clear up the huge backlog of cases in your area.  There are lots like that this year and we get the impression some of them have never handled a parking firm case before. 

They are local solicitors, and the only case law they will know about is Beavis, and unless they see cases like this all the time (as most District Judges do) they just don't get it....this is a diabolical decision, especially about the costs added when there was no finding of unreasonable conduct against you.

Even an obiter comment (para 419) from the Somerfield case from the High Court is persuasive upon the lower courts, and you quoted it in your WS, so if he read that paragraph from HHJ Hegarty, the £60 should never have been allowed.  Nor should the Claimant's attendance costs.

I am so sorry that this Judge got it wrong. 
It sounds like none of us would have won in front of that Judge and I am so sorry it was you.

Thanks very much for that comment, that was really helpful for me. You see exactly how I’m feeling right now. 


It really is a game of chance, at least some of the time. I guess I’ll just have to pay up and move on.


Thanks very much to everyone who helped me along the way. Regardless of the outcome, the intentions and advice from everyone here was fantastic and I really think you’re doing a massively good deed. It’s given me a good insight into this world which I’m sure will be valuable in my life. You guys rule!


If I can repay the favour anytime, I’m here

robertcox999

By the way, this is the landowner for the car park (Damside street, Lancaster) and their phone number. It's owned by the first link company with a registered office on the bottom link - I got their number from the bottom link company's website. Just in case someone has better luck with those guys than I did - "some people just don't let things go" is what they said to me - not the most sympathetic bunch...

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01217291

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00580493

+44 (0)121 308 8857

Hope it's ok the post this - let me know if not and I'll take it down

Coupon-mad

Yes, should be fine and thankyou for supporting the fight.

You have no idea what else is going on in the background but let's just say the fight isn't just on the forum. 
And we are making a difference.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

You have no idea what else is going on in the background but let's just say the fight isn't just on the forum. 
And we are making a difference.

And why the PPCs are obviously panicking judging by their responses to PAS 232, attempting to not only circumvent the Sir Greg Knight Act, but to argue for the status quo and some further powers for the PPC network. It was more than one hankering for a return to clamping and towing. In fact, anything to make them money. Some did try to dress themselves up as a the saviour of landowners, not very convincingly to those in the know!

bargepole

Sorry to hear about your loss, especially with such a good WS, but the reality is that there are some Judges who believe that Beavis trumps everything, and there are no defences.

As @Coupon-mad suggests, this may well have been a recently-appointed DDJ brought in to clear the backlog, who had made his mind up before you walked through the door of the (virtual) courtroom. Nothing that you, or any of us might have said, would have made any difference.

D_P_Dance

Judge Bingo will butter no parsnips,  judges are accountable, read this 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure

bargepole

D_P_Dance said:

Judge Bingo will butter no parsnips,  judges are accountable, read this 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure

That will get you nowhere. The complaints procedure specifically excludes a complaint about the Judgment:

If you’re unhappy with the result of a case

You cannot use our complaints process above to challenge a judicial decision. If you think that a judge’s decision was incorrect, you may want to seek legal advice if you decide to appeal against the decision

D_P_Dance

I disagree, I do not hold CC Judges in the esteem in which you appear to.  Judges are accountable just as are any other  public servants.

I have three times won compensation for judical fubars, including the case against the good doctor in which you were initially involved.  He failed to pay so I  issued a writ of controlt which a judge unlawfully set aside, £166,  kerching.  

bargepole

D_P_Dance said:

I disagree, I do not hold CC Judges in the esteem in which you appear to.  Judges are accountable just as are any other  public servants.

I have three times won compensation for judical fubars, including the case against the good doctor in which you were initially involved.  He failed to pay so I  issued a writ of controlt which a judge unlawfully set aside, £166,  kerching.  

Yes, but the case you are referring to (a dentist, not a doctor) was a foul up over the enforcement procedure, rather than the substantive Judgment delivered at the hearing.

The quote above is taken directly from the complaints page you linked to. The only way to challenge a Judgment given at a final hearing with the parties present to give their evidence, is by way of appeal, which can be a complicated and potentially expensive process.