Finding of fact win

Le_Kirk

22.              I have considered whether, having been issued with the first penalty notice charge, the driver was on notice of the contract such that by the occasion of his second parking charge he must be said to be bound by it.  However, I find this is flawed because the driver is in the same position in that he cannot reasonably be expected to know the terms of the contract simply because a penalty notice charge had been applied on that occasion. 

Did it really say PENALTY?

Jenni_D

Le_Kirk said:

22.              I have considered whether, having been issued with the first penalty notice charge, the driver was on notice of the contract such that by the occasion of his second parking charge he must be said to be bound by it.  However, I find this is flawed because the driver is in the same position in that he cannot reasonably be expected to know the terms of the contract simply because a penalty notice charge had been applied on that occasion. 

Did it really say PENALTY?

I was going to comment similarly ... it also says the same in 15 and 22. Does this help or hinder? (Or does it not really matter?)

12. What was the judgment that was filed late? Was it the Semark-Jullien case or something else?

Finally - the hearing number would be needed if anyone needed to use this transcript in future?

Jenni x

payin4nowthavingitout

beamerguy said:

Thank you, a good report.

Assume Mr Chapman of Pace has learned a lesson and will be very careful in future when he plays games with a court

Sadly we can never assume with the likes of Michael Charman. I read on one site, possibly here or Parking Prankster, Parking Cowboys, Pepioo or LegalBeagles (all very useful sites but not as good as here) that he was relatively reasonable in court. I've only heard him on the phone but any reasonableness is just a thin veneer. He and Gladstones use every dirty trick in the book. I suppose  a career as a parking clamper and a £130k turnover with £30k dividends can turn the best of us bad. 
He suggested I was incapable of understanding the relevant law, was using a Cnrl C and Cntrl V defence (only partially true ;O)), filed court application at my old address, when he and Gladstones were corresponding at my new address (this resulted in the need for a set aside for £255, suggested my photographs of the site should be inadmissible and then did the same thing hiself, refused to mediate or make any offer and even told one Judge at a directions hearing that I was not willing to negotiate - I soon put him straight. Around this time each Friday is when low life PPC's issue court documents and bundles. None of it is by accident. I think many in the Judiciary are aware and tired of Charman et al's antics which are purely profit motivated and will hopefully be paired back in the new code of conduct.

payin4nowthavingitout

Coupon-mad said:

Brilliant!  Thanks so much for getting and sharing this transcript.

So that people can use it and so they are not printing out a forum post that a Judge will disregard as hearsay, could you show us a redacted scan or legible photo of the judgment itself please, so it's the true document?  Or pm it to me and I will redact your name off it if you'd rather do it that way?

Excellent point CM. The case number is F2GF40PG. I will put the Judgement  up too so that other's can quote as the Judiciary have access to all cases.

payin4nowthavingitout

Snakes_Belly said:

"23. Furthermore, I find the placing of the sign on the entrance of the car park in the manner described, being on the edge of the building and above immediate eye level, would be unfair if it was to be found to create a contract.  Therefore, considering Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I find any purported contract on this basis would therefore render the relevant terms pertaining the imposition of the penalty charging notice to be unfair."

Thank you for obtaining the transcript. It is useful as a counter argument to the case that Excel and VCS cite (Shoe lane which is a barrier car park) that the contract is formed on entry to the car park. 

The signage to the car park that I and others have fallen foul off could no way form a contract based on the above decision. 
 

Glad it is of use to you and potentially others. It's 22 quid's worth of unbridled joy imho.
I've read plenty of people on here who were not so fortunate to get allocated a decent Judge. It is the luck of the draw but I'm hopeful the tide is turning.

Mickey666

Good to read another successful claim against a PPC, but out of interest are there any reliable figures for how many PPC PCNs are issued each year, how many are contested and how many are won?

payin4nowthavingitout

Umkomaas said:

Great win and thanks for not only purchasing the transcript, but for also sharing it with us here. A 'prudent and reasonable' parking firm would have realised they had no case to bring, but they are so full of their own sh*t, they think that they are entitled to anyone's £100 by simply sending a NtK!  Good on District Judge Robinson! 👏

Charman tried to cozy up to another Judge yesterday using similar language, suggesting "prudent and reasonable" drivers would see the sign and leave. That didn't work for him either. He's a parsimonious, lazy so and so who wants £160 per ticket on sites he simply does not maintain properly. DJ Robinson took the trouble to tell him what he should do. I'd use less polite language.

payin4nowthavingitout

Le_Kirk said:

22.              I have considered whether, having been issued with the first penalty notice charge, the driver was on notice of the contract such that by the occasion of his second parking charge he must be said to be bound by it.  However, I find this is flawed because the driver is in the same position in that he cannot reasonably be expected to know the terms of the contract simply because a penalty notice charge had been applied on that occasion. 

Did it really say PENALTY?

Not actually seen any of the PCN's but on the NTK it's merely CN and Charge Notice. In the Bundle it was Charge Notice on the ticket too.

beamerguy

I think many in the Judiciary are aware and tired of Charman et al's antics which are purely profit motivated and will hopefully be paired back in the new code of conduct.

You are a wise man and if you have time, maybe you could help others on here.
You are right, the courts have woken up a lot. 
Because covid will be around for a long time, it's close to Armageddon for parking companies.
This can only result in chasing very old tickets to which the legals will be clueless.

Example is, the other day I drove into a well known UKPC honey trap.  I spotted the UKPC goon giving a ticket and then he started running around like a mad hatter taking pictures up and down the car park, not cars.  Clearly trying to prove to his boss there was no business around.

This is a busy car park normally holding 200 plus cars.   I counted 20 cars.
This will be happening all over the country. .
Parking companies will go bust and a few months later so will some legals

And all this before the new code of practice

Jenni_D

payin4nowthavingitout said:

Le_Kirk said:

22.              I have considered whether, having been issued with the first penalty notice charge, the driver was on notice of the contract such that by the occasion of his second parking charge he must be said to be bound by it.  However, I find this is flawed because the driver is in the same position in that he cannot reasonably be expected to know the terms of the contract simply because a penalty notice charge had been applied on that occasion. 

Did it really say PENALTY?

Not actually seen any of the PCN's but on the NTK it's merely CN and Charge Notice. In the Bundle it was Charge Notice on the ticket too.

I think the surprise was at the judgment saying penalty ... judges should know better.

Jenni x