Finding of fact win

payin4nowthavingitout

Jenni_D 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?

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

Jenni_D 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?

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

Yes it was Semark-Jullien case. My beef was that that case was available on the net as of 31/07/20 but Gladstone's and Charman issued it the weekend before the case at around 4pm, as is their standard tactic.

In another case yesterday, Gladstones advised me that their office was closing for Christmas at 14:00, and issued the Trial Bundle 3 hours prior. I'm wise to them and the court order gave me 7 days prior to 7/01/21.

beamerguy

payin4nowthavingitout said:

Jenni_D 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?

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

Jenni_D 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?

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

Yes it was Semark-Jullien case. My beef was that that case was available on the net as of 31/07/20 but Gladstone's and Charman issued it the weekend before the case at around 4pm, as is their standard tactic.

In another case yesterday, Gladstones advised me that their office was closing for Christmas at 14:00, and issued the Trial Bundle 3 hours prior. I'm wise to them and the court order gave me 7 days prior to 7/01/21.

Gladstones don't understand that their days of scamming are over.
The IAS will shortly be a dodo 
No doubt we will hear what scam Davies and Hurley will set up next ?
Could be fake covid jabs or bit coins.  

Mind you, we will shortly be looking for a legal who just like PPI, can claim back the fake £60 that in the past judges have allowed .... GLADSTONES = NAH .... not smart enough

Coupon-mad

Mickey666 said:

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?

About ten million private PCNs were issued in the last full year before the pandemic.   

Ten million has been confirmed to me as 'about right' by the Trade Bodies, when I calculated that the 8.4 million mentioned here by the RAC (that only accounts for those where the PPC goes to the the DVLA and pays £2.50 to be happily handed keeper data with no questions asked) doesn't include windscreen PCNs that are paid or appealed by drivers up front and never involve the DVLA:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-issue-15-new-tickets-every-minute-research-reveals/

As there are about 32 million private cars registered, people have about a one in three chance of getting scammed, per annum.

This exponential rise and the scamming way they add on fake costs and bully consumers is why the Government are stepping in.  The new law was passed in 2019 and the Code of Practice is being finalised this year and a Single Appeals Service will also be set up.  Hopefully if POPLA or the IAS apply, they will be given short shrift and it will be run by truly independent and legally-trained people, like the TPT is.

About a third are paid I understand.  Shame on those people.

As to how many are 'won', if you mean in court we can't speak for how consumers get on if they don't take forum advice,.  But we see 99% wins reported and have done since 2016, consistently.  Even accounting for some people who don't come back to report their outcomes, the win rate is superb and constant and would still be well over 9 out of 10 wins.

Umkomaas

Could there really be around 7m court cases every year? 

Most cases only reach court 4 or more years after the parking event. It has been ramping up annually since the disastrous Beavis case. We are seeing a large surge right now, as hitherto extremely benign PPCs are passing their back catalogue of unpaid cases to a baying mob of robo-claim solicitors (and quasi imitators), as their income has been given an 80% COVID chop. 

Just look at the forum first page. A few years ago it was just a long list of bog standard parking charges seeking advice how to contest them at first base. We wouldn't see a court case for weeks.  Now, just run your eyes over any current day's first page and you'll hardly find a first base case. 

Coupon-mad

I take your point about the very high win rate if people pursue the matter, but 2/3rds or nearly 7m people contesting PCNs seems a very high figure. 

That's not what I said!  Massive assumption there!

Lots of people see it as a scam (quite right) and ignore a PCN (bad idea) having watched a Watchdog episode in 2010 where a lawyer made a paper aeroplane out of a private parking charge.  People also Google & find old advice and some people never know about their PCN if they have moved house and the letters go astray.

About 20% appeal to the parking charge. 

Only about 1% appeal further, to POPLA or the IAS (the kangaroo courts).

Many PPCs never sue anyone, ever.

Could there really be around 7m court cases every year? 

Nope, about 110,000, resulting in about 11,000 actually going to hearings.  Remember the 99% win rate is HERE ONLY.  Tip of the iceberg.  I am sure lots of people defend badly, and lots get default CCJs by not defending. Most people who get a LBC or claim just pay.  Shame on them for not lifting a finger and Googling it even at that stage.    

I do condemn people who pay because if it wasn't for the British people being such a pushover, this industry would never have flourished like it has. 

Some of us are trying very hard to turn this entire situation around, not that the public even know what we do.

Mickey666

I was only making assumptions to fill in where you had not provided those other figures, which give a much more informed and helpful picture. So thanks for that.

Still think it's harsh to condemn people for being a pushover though.  Faced with a choice of paying £60 or spending weeks, months, years defending a PCN, I'm really not surprised that so many people just pay up and move on with their lives.  It's not right though.

beamerguy

Mickey666 said:

I was only making assumptions to fill in where you had not provided those other figures, which give a much more informed and helpful picture. So thanks for that.

Still think it's harsh to condemn people for being a pushover though.  Faced with a choice of paying £60 or spending weeks, months, years defending a PCN, I'm really not surprised that so many people just pay up and move on with their lives.  It's not right though.

You are wrong, most people are a pushover hence the increasing number of people being scammed. The parking industry simply relies on ignorance.

The winners are those that seek out sites like this.  The losers simply pay up and they are a pushover

Snakes_Belly

"Still think it's harsh to condemn people for being a pushover though.  Faced with a choice of paying £60 or spending weeks, months, years defending a PCN, I'm really not surprised that so many people just pay up and move on with their lives.  It's not right though."

To pay up though is to perpetuate the scam. 

What I found the most difficult to get my head around is that often it is because of badly maintained car parks people fall foul and then get ticketed and sent an invoice. I worked for a while as a customer service manager for a large company and if we messed up we paid compensation. They seem to be the only organisations that can shaft people for their own failings.

I could afford to roll over and pay up but there are many people who would be very disadvantaged by receiving a PCN for £100.00 and would not be able to pay it. They would end up with a CCJ.  For me it was a matter of principle. 

payin4nowthavingitout

The Judgement attached.
As mentioned in replies I had another hearing with Mr Charman and Pace yesterday. Different Judge, DDJ. I barely said two words unlike last time out. The Judge picked Charman up on signage. PACE used two signs on residential sites. The sign that does not say "No Parking Area" was the sign the Judge got his teeth into. Forty five minutes of Charman on the hook for his wording of the sign. It was better than him exhaling a huge sigh of disappointment previously. My witness statements were all about the previous case and the transcript pointing out the signs positioning was not good enough. Never got a mention. The Judge said the sign did not give a clearly achievable offer, particularly how a permit could be sought. It was not made clear how a motorist could achieve parking and the wording on this was too small and too low down the sign. "You've talked around the issue very well Mr Charman but I'm not convinced". I was never convinced but I was not expecting this. The Judge stated he would state his rational in the order so I hope a further transcript will not be necessary. Charman "wouldn't let it lie" and sought permission to appeal, which the Judge initially at least seemed to entertain. Charman was insistent it was a lawful contract, "with respect Sir" ad infinitum but seemed to lose it when he stated Judges up and down the country had accepted his signs in circa 400 cases. I could barely contain myself as the Judge denied his permission to appeal request. This was two cases combined but all four cases should have been combined as they concern the same site, claimant, defendant, vehicle and 8 tickets over a 4 month period. So yesterday was for circa £1050 and 5 tickets. Previous final hearing was for  circa £450 and 2 tickets. So that's 7 - 0 by my maths. It's not the money, it's not winning, it's the taking part and the experience of Michael being taken apart.

Will share the latest case details when I receive them. The eagle eyed among you will note there remains 1 ticket remaining. Who knows what tomorrow brings. 

payin4nowthavingitout

Snakes_Belly said:

"Still think it's harsh to condemn people for being a pushover though.  Faced with a choice of paying £60 or spending weeks, months, years defending a PCN, I'm really not surprised that so many people just pay up and move on with their lives.  It's not right though."

To pay up though is to perpetuate the scam. 

What I found the most difficult to get my head around is that often it is because of badly maintained car parks people fall foul and then get ticketed and sent an invoice. I worked for a while as a customer service manager for a large company and if we messed up we paid compensation. They seem to be the only organisations that can shaft people for their own failings.

I could afford to roll over and pay up but there are many people who would be very disadvantaged by receiving a PCN for £100.00 and would not be able to pay it. They would end up with a CCJ.  For me it was a matter of principle. 

Yes, that's the point of it for me. There are plenty of decent, unsuspecting folk getting ripped off by the PCN's. Many simply feel too intimidated by the scam so they rob Peter to pay Paul, the nasty PCN. Too many end up with loans to cover the costs or CCJ's.
If you can afford it is a moral obligation to fight them. As others have said I think and hope the tide has turned and their time is at an end. They are simply bad rubbish.