Questions about Schedule 4 of POFA

ihatetrump

OK here goes: several points to consider:

• Was advised at the outset that the 2.5 hours for the hearing would only be 90 minutes - I immediately felt pressure.
• I was not the driver and I contended that Sch 4 PoFA did not apply due to the car park not being relevant land - it is owned by Milton Keynes Development Partnership which is 100% owned by Milton Keynes Council - therefore a 'traffic authority' - the judge did not seem to accept this argument, expressing the view that MKDP was the landowner and the land was relevant land.
• The lease and management agreement failings (terminated, poorly executed etc) held no sway - the conduct of the parties was such that there was no evidence of no landowner authority.
• despite the largest sign in the car park saying 'Public Car Park'  the judge held that it was private land and a private car park:
• The judge had difficulty understanding why I had not named the driver - and thrown my daughter under the bus!!!!!!!!!!!
• It was accepted that the car was parked on the day in question, but I was not the driver and so I could not provide proof of what signs were there on the day )or whether they were from somewhere else).
• Claimants' photos included those from other claimant car parks (taken 2 years previously) - but (based on the previous point) I was unable to prove that those signs were not at the entrance to or in the car park on the day in question. 
• My GSV photos held no sway - not evidence of what was there on the day.
• None of the signage had advertising consent - judge stated that it was not necessary or required - in fact signage to indicate parking T&C's was required.
• The judge opined that there was no abuse of process and that the £60 charge as communicated in the signage was valid, (and then words to the effect of) even though aware of other case law, there had been no directives in this regard

I was nervous (who wouldn't be?), probably bumbled through too much - but I knew from a very early stage that it was not going my way and I was on a hiding to nothing - and with that I just wanted it over, which then didn't help my cause in getting my points across, irrespective of what had been in my witness statement.

If I have said anything untoward here, please kindly advise.

Fruitcake

I am sorry you lost, but know this, you did your best. Nothing you have said is untoward.
It does appear to me, and this is purely my opinion, you had a judge who was clueless so consequently you never had a chance.

Jenni_D

the conduct of the parties was such that there was no evidence of no landowner authority.

Huh? Surely the onus was on them to provide evidence that there is/was landowner authority? Lack of proof of landowner authority should automatically mean there is NO landowner authority - you asked them to provide such proof and they failed.

Is this a case of the judge erring in law?

ihatetrump

Thanks to everyone for your past help, support and advice.

For those of you who want to know who your judge is in advance, I registered with Courtserve (it's free):

https://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/county/indexv2county.php

It at least gives you a few hours (or days if you are lucky) to know who will hearing your case and what you may be up against.

BrownTrout

ihatetrump said:

Thanks to everyone for your past help, support and advice.

For those of you who want to know who your judge is in advance, I registered with Courtserve (it's free):

https://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/county/indexv2county.php

It at least gives you a few hours (or days if you are lucky) to know who will hearing your case and what you may be up against.

Yes court lists for the crown/County/Mags are uploaded from each court from around 3pm the day before and normally done by around 5.30

ihatetrump

Jenni_D said:

the conduct of the parties was such that there was no evidence of no landowner authority.

Huh? Surely the onus was on them to provide evidence that there is/was landowner authority? Lack of proof of landowner authority should automatically mean there is NO landowner authority - you asked them to provide such proof and they failed.

Is this a case of the judge erring in law?

I think what was meant here was that as the parties had continued in their commercial arrangement after any supposed expiration of term, (which maybe had only been a technicality - and I had no right to interfere in their commercial arrangement), their continued conduct had therefore shown landowner authority.

Umkomaas

Just got in and spotted this. So sorry it turned out that way.  But I'm sure it sharpens your resolve even more to edge the big boys of this game into position for the executioner's axe. 🪓

ihatetrump

Thanks @Umkomaas

Appreciate your support - yes will continue with the number crunching and analysis - just need to stay on the right side of the Mods!

Jenni_D

ihatetrump said:

Jenni_D said:

the conduct of the parties was such that there was no evidence of no landowner authority.

Huh? Surely the onus was on them to provide evidence that there is/was landowner authority? Lack of proof of landowner authority should automatically mean there is NO landowner authority - you asked them to provide such proof and they failed.

Is this a case of the judge erring in law?

I think what was meant here was that as the parties had continued in their commercial arrangement after any supposed expiration of term, (which maybe had only been a technicality - and I had no right to interfere in their commercial arrangement), their continued conduct had therefore shown landowner authority.

But hadn't you also fundamentally disputed the validity of the authority in the first place?

ihatetrump

But hadn't you also fundamentally disputed the validity of the authority in the first place?

Yes, within my WS - flawed leases and management agreement - judge basically disregarded - basically I think the judge believed the intent of the parties was clear.