Please Help - have to submit a defence asap - very poor signage at non pay and display car park

RapidD

Update - just getting the Queen LP out now..... 

As promised I'll write things up later tonight. 

Thanks very much for everyone's help, I really appreciate it. 

Jenni_D

[Waits with baited breath]  

RapidD

Ok, here goes...... I got the win!!

Court write up:

The process

My hearing was via video CVP (cloud video platform). My advice for anyone doing this is ensure:
1. you do the video test at least a few days before to check your video & mic is working. My mic wasn't working but thankfully I did this a few days before and manage to rectify the problem before the hearing.
CVP test info here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-join-a-cloud-video-platform-cvp-hearing/how-to-join-cloud-video-platform-cvp-for-a-video-hearing
2. Make sure 3-7 days before the hearing you email your court a confirmation email address and telephone number, which they use the former to send you the CVP joining link. This info is in the court order but I nearly missed it.

Once logged into the 'guest room' an admin person talked me through a few basics. The judge then joined. Important to note that in my hearing, the claimant choose not to attend but apparently emailed the court asking to be 'excused', so basically for the judge to treat it as if they were there but obviously they weren't able to offer any additional input. A good start for me! 

The discussion

- The judge handled things from the 1st second until the last. There was no 'talk me through these points' or 'what are your main arguments'. I didn't have the floor at any point, I just listened and answered when asked. 

- There was no discussion on any legal points whatsoever. Perhaps this may have been different if Gladstones had bothered to send a representative. 

- I had 3 main arguments ready but I wasn't asked to outline them, the judge was only interested in what he perceived the case to be about, which was whether there was sufficient signage to show as the motorist, I'd been given the choice whether or not to accept the terms of the contract. 

- To that end, we spent 90% of the hearing time (excluding the judge's judgement) discussing all of the photographic evidence that the claimant and I had provided. That was the photos that I'd provided of the entrance and the 360 view around the parked car. From their evidence he was only interested in their site plan, showing where they claim all the signs to be, and a blown up stock digital picture of what they claimed to be the main sign, constituting the claimed contract.

- The judge really took his time to understand exactly what the scenery was, comparing all the photos I took to their site plan, ensuring he knew exactly what viewing angles matched which piece of evidence. This was done very amicably as a 2 person discussion to basically agree what matched what. Thankfully I was organised with my evidence and the claimant's. We were constantly switching from page x to page y to page z quickly. If I wasn't organised this would have been a nightmare. 

- Once we'd established that the entrance signs claimed by the site plan weren't present, I did get the distinct feeling that that he was going to rule in my favour and the hearing seemed to get moved along quicker after that. (It was his last hearing of the week on a Friday afternoon!).

- I was asked if there was anything I'd like to add but I felt confident at this point and didn't want to raise any further legal points. The judge was so down to earth, I almost felt like it wasn't appropriate as he didn't seem interested in anything else.

Legal Points

- The judge disagreed with my claim that the claimant violated IPC's code of conduct by not issuing signage before the commencement of their enforcement contract to advise motorists of any impending 'change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist'. He said this only applied when enforcement was already in place and they change the terms. 

- Their witness statement contradicted their own sign, with one saying it was 'warden controlled' and the other saying it isn't. I argued that this false information would have constituted them breaking their own contract if the judge deemed one to be in place. The judge disagreed, saying that was simply a warning and had no bearing on the case. 

The Verdict

- The judge then gave the judgement. He outlined the case from start to finish in an almost pedantic way (understandably, this is necessary) which took a large part of the hearing time.

A few things in the judgement really stuck in my mind:

- The signs 'should be obvious to the motorist' so that they can choose whether to accept the contract or not.

- The claimant hadn't proved that their signs were obvious.

- The claimant only used stock photos and provided no photographic evidence of their signs in situ, the judged emphasised this point and stated the claimant hadn't proved the signs existed based on the photos he'd seen (emphasis).

- The judge noted the very small font of smallprint at one of the claimant's main stock photos and questioned whether this was legible. By this point he had already made his mind up but if I hadn't been thorough in proving their entrance signs didn't exist, I do wonder if this may have been a key point in deciding the case.

Costs

- Just as the judge was about to close the hearing I was like....'excuse me sir, can I ask about my claimed costs please??'

- He asked me what I wanted to say. I cited their signs not being present like the site plan suggested, double recovery them only using stock photos.

- I wasn't remotely close to getting my costs. He intimated them using stock photos was a big point in ruling in my favour and if they had, he may have ruled the other way.

- He pointed out that he could only award costs if the claimant was being 'unreasonable' and he didn't think that was the case.

Conclusion

I poured hours, upon hours, upon hours putting my 37 page 'bundle' of witness statement and evidence together, researching legal cases, constructing my crib sheet/arguments and rehearsing what I wanted to say. The judge stripped everything down so much, it honestly felt like it was a complete waste! I feel like I could just have rocked up with my photos and 1 paragraph explaining that I was being mugged off. There was no mention of any legal case, Beavis or otherwise. This doesn't mean of course, that this will be the same for everyone, I'm sure every judge has their own style. As I pointed out earlier, this may have been different had the claimant turned up. 

This was actually a good thing in many ways. In my humble opinion, it means the legal system worked. It wouldn't allow the little man to be bamboozled by a solicitor. The Judge got down to the real facts of the case and ruled on it's own merits, rather than any previous precedents. The judge was brilliant by the way, pleasant without being over friendly, easy to understand and felt like we were working together to establish the facts. 

Before the hearing I was thinking anyone who wasn't really switched on would be set up to fail here. After it, I think if you have a genuine grievance and have been treated unfairly, fight your corner! If you're trying to win on technicalities, I do think you'd need to be really on the ball and understand the legal arguments. 

Was it worth it? I'll be honest, I'm torn on it. My heart says yes. Although I didn't get my costs, I can sail off into the weekend knowing that the little man won and ended up costing the bullies hundreds. A win on principle! My head says I've spent so much time and been caused a lot of stress. Was that worth £60? Probably not. But hey, if people like me (and you) don't fight these cases, the bullies would do what they wanted!

Thank You

A final thanks to everyone that has helped me in this case. I wouldn't have got the win without the help. If anyone has any questions about the hearing feel free to ask. Even though it didn't have much tangible use in the end, my crib sheet did at lest get my brain organised and focused in terms of what I wanted to talk about. I feel it was good prep. I've attached it in case it helps anyone.

Crib sheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T2XZcekMHFPWWh8_UzciaWJ_YlujbISu/view?usp=sharing

Umkomaas

Super result, super report, super job. Well done, and thanks for the feedback. 

I understand what you say about £60 vs the hassle and work, but I'm sure if you had paid, your conscience would have been troubled in time to come. 

Have a couple of stiff ones, and celebrate. 🥂

Le_Kirk

Good outcome, good judge, good job!  Well done.  Shows that it is worth being organised and having a crib sheet - even if you didn't get to use it.

Redx

Excellent news , and excellent epilogue after action report too

Another one bites the dust !! 😁👍👍     HX and their lawyers lose again

D_P_Dance

Mostujnsatisfacipry imo.  I would send them an invoice for my time.  If they  ignore follow up with an LBA.

Jenni_D

RapidD said:

Edit: crib sheet file format not allowed (PDF or excel). If any admin feels it may be useful please contact me so I can send a copy.

You could put it on dropbox or similar and link it here? Or copy/paste into a reply here?

Regarding costs, you should have got your ordinary costs for attending the hearing (£47.50 half day, £95 full day), but further costs are rarely awarded.

RapidD

Jenni_D said:

RapidD said:

Edit: crib sheet file format not allowed (PDF or excel). If any admin feels it may be useful please contact me so I can send a copy.

You could put it on dropbox or similar and link it here? Or copy/paste into a reply here?

Regarding costs, you should have got your ordinary costs for attending the hearing (£47.50 half day, £95 full day), but further costs are rarely awarded.

Heh, who knew. I didn't realise I could do that with Drive. That was simple!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T2XZcekMHFPWWh8_UzciaWJ_YlujbISu/view?usp=sharing

(I'll also add that to my write up). 

Regarding costs, I didn't realise I was entitled to that. I've obviously read the wording in several WS's but I still assumed it was to the judge's discretion. Perhaps I simply didn't draw his attention to 'ordinary costs' sufficiently? 

Thanks Jenni. 

Jenni_D

Typically one would submit a Summary Costs Assessment prior to the hearing ... this would cover Ordinary costs and Further costs subject to CPR 27.14(g) (I think).