DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

D_P_Dance

Surely this falls to be considered as vexatious litigation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

patient_dream

holderness said:

D_P_Dance said:

IMO a valid contractt between the PPC and the landowner is a sine qua non.  The claimant MUST surely be abe to produce one before a claim can be considered.  IMO the judge was wrong.  

In my case DCBL readily admit that the claimant they are representing has no written contract with the landowner and that the landowner does not support the claim but they will proceed to court at the request of the claimant  

Amazing ... the first responsibility for DCBL is to the court.  DCBL don't have to accept the case

A lesson for DCBL that they cannot trust the private parking scam and to fully understand the claim they bring

Snakes_Belly

Well done Hounds.

Maybe the judge saw the recent programme which featured CM and Bargepole. 
 

Snakes_Belly

I would imagine that with the family cases stacking up that judges are getting fed up with these PPC's. 

patient_dream

Snakes_Belly said:

I would imagine that with the family cases stacking up that judges are getting fed up with these PPC's. 

So right. My opionion is that the PPC's and the very dodgy legals are now desperate to get money before the new code of practice and appeals service come in.   

The money scammers will still attempt to collect money on old tickets which in theory, they will rely on the current daft codes of practice ... both the BPA and IPC

.But the dodgy boys will fail with their rubbish and can be overcome by quoting the new code of practice and WHY the new code of practice was introduced.  

As always, it will depend on the judge and if they read and understand the reality. Sadly we know some won't and it's their lack of understanding that clogs up the courts  ..... they only have themselves to blame

Re-training courses on the facts of life maybe good for some judges

95Rollers

Snakes_Belly said:

I would imagine that with the family cases stacking up that judges are getting fed up with these PPC's. 

I would think so. Its also a way for people to get money back from Rogue traders/ dodgy builders, nightmare tenants or bent landlords etc or those ripped off in business deals/ had their consumer rights breached.  BUT it's taking much longer for these genuine people to get justice because the PPCs and their legals are "using the courts as a tool" - as boasted by one of the directors of OPS in the national press.

As someone else said I think they are trying to cash out before the rules change on cases where their marks won't be bullied or frightened into paying something the dispute so the only viable option is a game of chicken using the courts to up the stakes (and if that doesn't work send a Rentagob Rep or bottle it last minute) as someone else mentioned they can field the Judges difficult questions.

Anyway back on topic.  What a brilliant Judge!  He brought up some excellent points and full of common sense!

Thanks for sharing the reference number and all other info.  If you get a judgement document it would be worth uploading.

Snakes_Belly

95Rollers said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I would imagine that with the family cases stacking up that judges are getting fed up with these PPC's. 

I would think so. Its also a way for people to get money back from Rogue traders/ dodgy builders, nightmare tenants or bent landlords etc or those ripped off in business deals/ had their consumer rights breached.  BUT it's taking much longer for these genuine people to get justice because the PPCs and their legals are "using the courts as a tool" - as boasted by one of the directors of OPS in the national press.

As someone else said I think they are trying to cash out before the rules change on cases where their marks won't be bullied or frightened into paying something the dispute so the only viable option is a game of chicken using the courts to up the stakes (and if that doesn't work send a Rentagob Rep or bottle it last minute) as someone else mentioned they can field the Judges difficult questions.

Anyway back on topic.  What a brilliant Judge!  He brought up some excellent points and full of common sense!

Thanks for sharing the reference number and all other info.  If you get a judgement document it would be worth uploading.

I would hope that when the new single appeals service eventually comes into force that it substantially reduces the pipeline of claims. If the adjudicators have a fair amount of discretion and given the fact that some motorists will have paid the lesser charge then claims reaching the courts should be much less than the current level.

Snakes_Belly

This would have been costly for Walton Wilkins as this was the second hearing so two lots of rep fees. Second hearing may have been scheduled for two hours. The rep gets paid for the scheduled time even if the hearing only takes ten minutes. 

Walton's car parks are dreadful for machine failure and general lack of upkeep. There was Jimsnap's disappearing coins, Worcestermum's flooded, pot holed car park. Then there was the signage that was covered in graffiti as well as Hound's case of ticket machine failure. This is just a few examples.

I would imagine that the £8.00 congestion charge has hit Walton Wilkins as well as the pandemic with more people working from home. 

95Rollers

Snakes_Belly said:

I would imagine that the £8.00 congestion charge has hit Walton Wilkins as well as the pandemic with more people working from home. 

His days are surely numbered. I'm not a fan of driving in Birmingham City and parking was one of my main headaches. I've not driven in there for at least 8 years now. In London they've stretched the clear air zone (ULEZ) to incorporate everywhere with the A406 so that will have an effect on London based PPCs/ private carparks. NCP were recently crying about profits being down and struggling with rent in their London carparks during and after the pandemic.