DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

ignavia

I'm confused... The Judge held that "by paying to park [you] must have agreed to all T&C's", and also that you "hadn't purchased a ticket". Surely can't be both?

Th1nDiesel

ignavia said:

I'm confused... The Judge held that "by paying to park [you] must have agreed to all T&C's", and also that you "hadn't purchased a ticket". Surely can't be both?

He didn't explicitly state that I hadn't bought a ticket, but it was obvious by his tone and line of questioning that he felt I was bilking and looking to avoid the charge. When I continued to argue that I had paid, he stated that if that was the case then I must have agreed to the T&Cs to display the ticket and therefore PPL were in the right.

D_P_Dance

I'm confused... The Judge held that "by paying to park [you] must have agreed to all T&C's", 

Then the judge is wrong, he cannot possibly know that.  If the judge has jumped to conclusions then add that to your complaint.

Thrugelmir

D_P_Dance said:

I'm confused... The Judge held that "by paying to park [you] must have agreed to all T&C's", 

Then the judge is wrong, he cannot possibly know that.  If the judge has jumped to conclusions then add that to your complaint.

The schedule of tariff's must have been read. When deciding how much time to pay for and the ticket purchased.  That will be the judges basic premise.  There's no jumping to conclusions it's fact.

D_P_Dance

The schedule of tariff's must have been read. When deciding how much time to pay for and the ticket purchased. 
That will be the judges basic premise

Perhaps, but that is only part pf the contract.  . 

There's no jumping to conclusions it's fact.

I agree that part is fact, the rest is not.  Some T&C have been known to run to 700+ words of small print.   You yourself have said that you formed the imopression that the judge thought you had bilked.  That is jumping to conclusions.  and surely is enough to complain about his behaviour.  

bargepole

In a case like this, it all comes down to the credibility of the witness.

The key issue appears to be whether a ticket was purchased, and if so, did it fall off the windscreen.

The other arguments about contract, signage etc., are largely irrelevant, and probably gave the Judge the impression that the OP was on a fishing expedition to try to get out of paying.

The standard of proof in civil cases is 'on balance of probabilities', so if a Judge is satisfied that it is 51% more likely than not that something happened, he can make a finding of fact on that point.

Not ideal for the OP, but I can't see any substantive cause for complaint here. 

D_P_Dance

Not ideal for the OP, but I can't see any substantive cause for complaint here. 

I certaily can, bias,and unfamiliarity with the law to start with.  There may have been other similar complaints against this judge. 

Th1nDiesel

bargepole said:

In a case like this, it all comes down to the credibility of the witness.

The key issue appears to be whether a ticket was purchased, and if so, did it fall off the windscreen.

The other arguments about contract, signage etc., are largely irrelevant, and probably gave the Judge the impression that the OP was on a fishing expedition to try to get out of paying.

The standard of proof in civil cases is 'on balance of probabilities', so if a Judge is satisfied that it is 51% more likely than not that something happened, he can make a finding of fact on that point.

Not ideal for the OP, but I can't see any substantive cause for complaint here. 

This echoes my thoughts and my earlier comment and the more I've thought about the more I think this is the reason for the decision.

However, at some point whether or not I bought a ticket becomes irrelevant, if they never had legal standing to charge me in the first place, hence the additional arguments, which were all ignored.

In all honesty, if the judge had not been so aggressive, I would have let this go already, but his attitude was terrible and not a great representation of the court system.

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

  You yourself have said....  

Except that @Thrugelmir didn't say that.   

Snakes_Belly

"In a case like this, it all comes down to the credibility of the witness."

In which case a telephone hearing would not help. When the hearing is attended it is easier for the judge to get the measure of the parties to the claim. I hope that attended hearings are not a thing of the past and a casualty of the pandemic.

I do agree with Bargepole's comments and whatever action you decide to take I would not throw any more money at the case.