WON - Case Dismissed by DDJ! One Parking Solution Vantage Point Brighton - £95 Costs Awarded!

bargepole

But a quick LinkedIn search said that the guy works or had worked for Elms - maybe he's freelance? 

In almost all of these parking cases, they will use a freelance advocate who will usually only get sight of the case papers the day before the hearing. So they have to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, whilst you will have had weeks / months to rehearse your arguments.

They get a fixed fee for attending court, win or lose, and regardless of whether the hearing lasts 10 minutes or 2 hours. I've met quite a few of them over the years, most of them are pleasant enough, and they will cover all sorts of cases in the County Court, not just parking.

As they say on The Chase, Just Another Day At The Office.

BrownTrout

bargepole said:

But a quick LinkedIn search said that the guy works or had worked for Elms - maybe he's freelance? 

In almost all of these parking cases, they will use a freelance advocate who will usually only get sight of the case papers the day before the hearing. So they have to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, whilst you will have had weeks / months to rehearse your arguments.

They get a fixed fee for attending court, win or lose, and regardless of whether the hearing lasts 10 minutes or 2 hours. I've met quite a few of them over the years, most of them are pleasant enough, and they will cover all sorts of cases in the County Court, not just parking.

As they say on The Chase, Just Another Day At The Office.

@bargepole Indeed that is the case. Their bread and butter are cases on the small claims track.  The majority of freelance advocates come from three firms.  The better ones then move up the ladder but seem happy peddling this kind of work
You tend to see the same faces week in week out 

95Rollers

The money was paid into my account yesterday. So just waiting on the paperwork from the court.  One I've got that I'll do the full report as my notes are all over the place!!!  It's only been 4 working days so far otherwise I'll chase up the court as Judgment documents are a valuable resource for other victims in these situations. 

Its been an eye opener. Its certainly changed my views and behaviour in regards to parking. Apart from the supermarket I pretty much avoid any private carparks. I meticulously read and photograph all signage (even in council carparks). I won't visit anyone at a residents carpark and I avoid pubs with such carparks. If I'm going to find myself in a situation where my only options are private P&D carparks I'll drive further out where I can park for free then get a cab to where I need to be. 

When I used to be on the road a lot with work years I'd plot up in petrol stations, buy lunch, eat in the car, snooze in service stations when too tired to drive, leave my car in pub carparks when I decided to stay, visit people who lived in private flats and drive into packed carparks and drive round looking for spaces or taking too long to locate and read the T&C's sign. 
Little did I know that the then clampers who we all hated would jump in on the carpark industry (which was previously mainly NCP) and would make up lots of ambiguous rules and poorly visible and positioned signs as a tool to Tax innocent people like they did when they were clampers (which the government thankfully shut down). Instead of clamping your car and holding it to ransom - they now now clamp your privacy and Mental Health over a protracted period in which they use an Amry of no-win no-fee unregulated bullies to crank up the psychological pressure with a plethora of lies and misinformation to frighten into paying them (with added unlawful fees) or  gaslight into believing you've committed an "offence" and you're on the path to a CCJ, being door-rushed by bailiffs on national TV and therefore missing out on a chance of a fair trial.

 Its been a real eye opener  investigating, researching and interviewing other  on their experiences.  

patient_dream

Can't wait for the court report

Your experience with this is valuable to help others, hope you can

fisherjim

95Rollers said:

. 
Little did I know that the then clampers who we all hated would jump in on the carpark industry (which was previously mainly NCP) and would make up lots of ambiguous rules and poorly visible and positioned signs as a tool to Tax innocent people like they did when they were clampers (which the government thankfully shut down). Instead of clamping your car and holding it to ransom - they now now clamp your privacy and Mental Health over a protracted period in which they use an Amry of no-win no-fee unregulated bullies to crank up the psychological pressure with a plethora of lies and misinformation to frighten into paying them (with added unlawful fees) or  gaslight into believing you've committed an "offence" and you're on the path to a CCJ, being door-rushed by bailiffs on national TV and therefore missing out on a chance of a fair trial.

Absolutely spot on!

Umkomaas

patient_dream said:

Can't wait for the court report

Me too. I love red meat!

95Rollers

COURT REPORT

A little late as its now been over 3 weeks. But I've still not received my copy of the Judgment yet despite vigorous chasing.


I joined the MS Teams Video Meeting at the scheduled time, where I saw the claimant's legal rep who works for ELMs.  He seemed polite and was helpful when I was struggling to get MS Teams to connect on my laptop. Luckily my partner was working at home was able to connect via my phone (despite my dummy runs on Teams working before). As soon as my phone connected - the laptop decided to connect!  So I cancelled that as the phone was better.  

After 5 or so minutes the Judge joined the call, but not on video himself.  The Judge stated he that he had both my Witness Statement and Supplementary WS.  The Judge stated he did not have any paperwork from the Claimant!  He asked the Rep to clarify what there was and the rep sent it over.  There was a break whilst the Court Clerk intervened and the Judge presumably went through their papers.  

The Judge then asked the claimant to proceed and offered him the chance to cross examine me. The Rep basically said that I could have paid using the phone line and asked me what the screen on the machine said when it didn't work.  I told him that I couldn't remember because it seemed like such a trivial event from 3 years ago. I was tempted to ask the Rep what colour socks he was wearing on that day in 2019 - but bit my tongue!  The rep also said that there is 2 machines in this carpark. I said that I was unaware of the lower level because it is not connected and then asked the Rep if he could point out any signs in his client's carpark that advise patrons of this other level or 2nd machine (which he could not because there is none).  The Rep then proceeded to go on about me being in the carpark for 23 minutes and that I should of paid within 10 minutes. Saying that the 10 minute period is an "industry standard".  The rep then went onto about there being alternative payment via phone and the app - to which I replied I stated numerous times I couldn't get a signal let alone internet then produced the phone I had at the time (an old Pay As You Go Nokia!).  I had a bit of a habit of asking questions and putting Rhetorics on the Rep and was advised by the Judge not to!

The Judge then summarised his account back to him. After this was done, the Judge said he didn't need to ask me anything because he had my statements with him.  I was a bit worried that he was shutting me down and that I would be fobbed off.  The judge then went through the first couple of paragraphs on my statement.  He stated that he agreed that I left and came back as its not unusual or unreasonable to people to wait for a space then leave then return. He went onto state that waiting is not parking, that the signage is not completely readable from a vehicle, that I had taken reasonable steps to pay and that their terms were unfair. The judge stated the definition of "parking" would be if I had left my car on the site then left it or parked it in a bay whilst I remained on site and did other stuff away from the vehicle. He never went into anything about Double Recovery or any of the case law.

I think because both my statements were so detailed in terms of signage, pictures/ diagrams, legislation and double recovery that I didn't really have to say much or clarify anything.  The judge commented that he could tell a lot of work had gone into my defence. The "internet template" argument wasn't used at all as the Rep seemed better than that and to be fair although I did adapt a rough template, I had massively personalised it and threw the kitchen sink into it!

After summarising my account I felt that things were back in my favour again and the case was subsequently dismissed. I can't remember if Costs were brought up by the Judge or I.  He stated that my claims for time preparing the case and unreasoble behaviour costs would not be awarded, but I was awarded the capped £95 as I took the day off work.  On the closing remarks I got to have my say and said I was glad this was over, that it had caused me stress/ upset and that I was frankly disgusted by the way this industry works. I then turned to the Rep and recapping that he mentioned the term "industry standards" - but asked him how can an unregulated industry have "standards" - who enforces these?  I then said its no wonder that the UK Government had to intervene with a new Parking Code of Practice. We were both thanked and I thanked the Judge and the Rep.

I hope this is useful and I will keep chasing the court for my paperwork.

EDIT ****
Another point I've remembered was the Rep asked me if I had appealed and why not? I explained that the Appeals was not independent and a pointless process based on the PPCs track record. I also elaborated that it was pointless when it us not legally standing. I also drew reference to their directors' unabashed boasting in the national media that they will never let anyone off with a ticket so what was the point in wasting my time. I also added that the PPC had made a "mistake" (the double dip) which I assumed would be picked up should they ever wish to pursue it to court as thete would be an expectation of real evidence and an  investigation of due dilligence to be carried out before it ever getting to that stage!  They couldn't argue that. I also drew reference to later One Parking Solutions lack of cooperation and evasiveness re: this! The rep couldn't justify or explain this!

** I'll add more stuff as I remember it and can decipher my illegible pages of scrawled shorthand notes!!!

Coupon-mad

Very useful to read this!  Was it Brighton court?

95Rollers

No it was Luton, with DDJ Davies.

bargepole

A little late as its now been over 3 weeks. But I've still not received my copy of the Judgment yet despite vigorous chasing.

I wouldn't get too excited about the Judgment. All it will probably say is:

Before Deputy District Judge Davies, sitting at Luton County Court on [DATE]

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claim is dismissed
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs of £95 within 14 days.

---

You have provided an excellent and useful report. Missing or inadequate signage can be a strong argument, when supported by clear photographic evidence, as in this case. In the Beavis case, the signage was large, clear and prominent, and repeated all over the car park such that it was impossible to fail to see it. Very few other car parks come up to that standard.