PCN Received from New Generation Parking Management - Advice Required

patient_dream

nero33 said:

Galloglass said:

Judge Bingo again.

Strange that two cases with very similar facts (following instructions where to park) get opposite results. In the Jinef case today at Cardiff they took a different view. And this was also a Welsh case from the paperwork. 

Did you get the judge's name

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379713/new-generation-parking-management-dcb-legal-claim-stage#latest

I didn't get the female judge's name.  It was quite long and mid Eastern sounding.

I don't think she was au fait with parking issues in that she saw it purely in black and white terms.

You win some, you get battered in some! And I took a thrashing

Sadly there are still some very ignorant Judges around, you got one of them. The judge is paid from the public purse yet has failed to understand the great parking scam.  Allowing the scam add-on just shows total ignorance

I would talk to your MP who should know about the new code of practice and that government banned the fake add-on.  A judge who has any intelligence should know ..... your judge needs re-training before she causes more damage.

Cardiff court already has a bad reputation even though today a motorist won in Cardiff ..... your MP has a job to do and tackle the MoJ as to why un-trained Judges are let loose on the public

nero33

Galloglass said:

This one?

http://www.projects.law.manchester.ac.uk/religion-law-and-the-constitution/mona-bayoumi/

You're correct about judges. If it is this one, she's a Mental Health judge with knowledge of "deprivation of liberty" and related cases. Not the stuff a Property or Commercial judge would come across. 

You've lost a battle but if you go back to the TA, you should make it clear to them that they were prevented from meeting their duties to their residents by the contract with NGPM. Suggest they should strongly look at it, and get it changed so others don't suffer the same fate.

Yes, that's her

nero33

Coupon-mad said:

She was hopelessly wrong.

Jopson and the Equality Act absolutely apply and the added £60 is clearly abusive if anyone engages their brain.  You do NOT have to name the driver and nor can any adverse inference be drawn from choosing to defend as keeper.

Sounds like you had no chance from the start, with an opinionated bad Judge.

So sorry.  It wasn't you.  It was her.

Which court?

If you still live there, consider moving out soon (I am really not joking.  You can't live like this.  Anyone with a car should NEVER sign up for a flat where a PPC infests the estate).

And...GET YOUR REVENGE.

Please don't miss the upcoming Public Consultation to change the private parking law and cap the 'greedy money' down at a lower level.

You must take part, you know how horrific this is and how draining and stressful this crap is - and why should consumers and residents have to suffer this relentless bullying claptrap?

Explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79803066/#Comment_79803066

Don't disappear!  We feel for you.  A bad Judge can happen to absolutely anyone.

Please do bookmark the relevant thread linked in that reply and set email alerts.

It was Newport Court.  Cardiff was part of that pilot scheme of no face to face hearings, hence moving it there.

I just wanted my day in court, and then whatever happens, happens.  But I was ambushed from the off, by her.  She essentially had her monologue and I knew I was doomed.  She agreed with everything the claimant had stated and I had to prove otherwise.

The legal rep actually said very little.  He didn't need to.

Do I just stump up and pay it or can I appeal the verdict or the amount?

Truth be told I'm feeling very low. And guilt that I took it so far only to have to pay 5x times the original amount.  Money that we don't have in these tough times for all.

Coupon-mad

Sadly, there's little chance of a better Judge the higher you go, and if's expensive to ask to appeal.  You'd have to spend hundreds on the transcript of today, plus pay a court fee even to ask) and there's no guarantee.

She'd have to have erred in law.  And you'd need a Circuit Judge prepared to agree with you.

That's unlikely IMHO.

FWIW, we think she did err by dismissing the Equality Act and the almost 'exact-match' Jopson case (where there was no loading space either, and like your estate, there were obviously signs up saying to park in bays).  Exactly the same scenario...only yours looked stronger because you had the Equality Act too.

I'd ring up the solicitors and pay in full and no CCJ happens.  

Get your own back by a robust, angry response to the Government demanding that they pull the plug on the bulk litigation culture by banning the added monies that enable it all and enrich everyone in the industry.

These parking cases should not get anywhere near courts and random Judges in future.  They should stay out of court and be decided by the new appeals service as a form of bespoke ADR.

You'd have won, had that existed already.

patient_dream

Galloglass said:

This one?

http://www.projects.law.manchester.ac.uk/religion-law-and-the-constitution/mona-bayoumi/

You said YES

Thanks Galloglass what you have highlighted is very serious

If this female judge deals with Mental Health with knowledge of "deprivation of liberty" and related cases ....... what the hell is the Court management allocating a parking case to her ???

The county court system is broken

B789

Maybe we should organise a campaign fund to assist in appealing these dreadful judgments by idiot judges err on points of law and who have no expertise in the matters being adjudicated.

Boat_to_Bolivia

nero33 said:

Coupon-mad said:

She was hopelessly wrong.

Jopson and the Equality Act absolutely apply and the added £60 is clearly abusive if anyone engages their brain.  You do NOT have to name the driver and nor can any adverse inference be drawn from choosing to defend as keeper.

Sounds like you had no chance from the start, with an opinionated bad Judge.

So sorry.  It wasn't you.  It was her.

Which court?

If you still live there, consider moving out soon (I am really not joking.  You can't live like this.  Anyone with a car should NEVER sign up for a flat where a PPC infests the estate).

And...GET YOUR REVENGE.

Please don't miss the upcoming Public Consultation to change the private parking law and cap the 'greedy money' down at a lower level.

You must take part, you know how horrific this is and how draining and stressful this crap is - and why should consumers and residents have to suffer this relentless bullying claptrap?

Explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79803066/#Comment_79803066

Don't disappear!  We feel for you.  A bad Judge can happen to absolutely anyone.

Please do bookmark the relevant thread linked in that reply and set email alerts.

It was Newport Court.  Cardiff was part of that pilot scheme of no face to face hearings, hence moving it there.

I just wanted my day in court, and then whatever happens, happens.  But I was ambushed from the off, by her.  She essentially had her monologue and I knew I was doomed.  She agreed with everything the claimant had stated and I had to prove otherwise.

The legal rep actually said very little.  He didn't need to.

Do I just stump up and pay it or can I appeal the verdict or the amount?

Truth be told I'm feeling very low. And guilt that I took it so far only to have to pay 5x times the original amount.  Money that we don't have in these tough times for all.

I can understand your feelings and frustrations, but please don't beat yourself up about it.

You got an ignorant Judge. She was in the wrong and even though she clearly didn't have the knowledge to judge your case, she still did. 

The system is seriously flawed. Again, very sorry for you.

Coupon-mad

B789 said:

Maybe we should organise a campaign fund to assist in appealing these dreadful judgments by idiot judges err on points of law and who have no expertise in the matters being adjudicated.

But Circuit Judges don't really appear to have a clue, or maybe some just don't care and think that people who don't pay unfair parking charges just need a slap.

The decision would likely be worse.

Look at the anti-consumer Beavis case where apparently "all Barry Beavis needed was a watch"... even though he was a genuine customer, delayed by a broken printing machine in Staples on site, and any one of the retailers would have cancelled the PCN , had anything on the signs told Barry that was an option.

Look at the car crash of a fudgement by HHJ Simpkiss in OPS v Wilshaw, where the Judge grinned and said he hadn't read all the submissions, which included (among other things) clear evidence that the signs & lines shown as "on site" in the WS bundle ... were not actually the signs and lines on site that day.  And the witness hadn't even signed the WS.  Never mind, eh...

He then lapped up every word of the PPC's very expensive parking expert barrister, including a very outdated reliance on 110-year old law about t&cs and signs (which is no longer good law and was kicked into touch by Lord Denning in the 1970s!).

Then he cheerfully admitted he had no background in civil cases then made Norma pay £3k (half OPS' costs) because apparently she'd been "unreasonable" for not rolling over when OPS appealed a judgment that I'd won on every single point, a slam-dunk at the earlier hearing.

He also thought that OPS were ParkingEye for the first 15 minutes of the hearing just because their barrister had been involved in the Beavis case, and apparently said things that made it clear to observers which way the decision was going.  

He also astonishingly declared in the awful judgment that slapped Norma months later, that parking firms (in his view) "do not need landowner authority" even though the BPA CoP was in evidence (the whole Code, in full) and clearly states it's mandatory ... obviously ... because the DVLA won't release data without the PPC having - yep - landowner authority!

Sigh...

Then look at HHJ Saffman in VCS v Percy, where he went against almost all the District Judges in his circuit (who were striking out inflated parking claims) and randomly decided that £100 was the cost of 'stage one' (PCN work) and £160 was apparently needed to cover 'stage 2' work, because "clearly this costs money".

Completely overlooking the fact that 'stage one' work is an AI system getting DVLA data for £2.50 and auto-posting a template PCN, for which the first stage money is £60 (the discount).  Not £100...which is blinking obviously for 'stage 2' work (the letter chain) which is no different than the letter chain seen in the Beavis case.

And no debt collector demands were even in evidence, much less anything to suggest VCS had paid any agent £60 (which PPCs never do).  So why "must this cost money" when £100 more than covers the automated letter chain model (same as Beavis)?

He apparently refused to even look at ParkingEye v Somerfield, chuckling that it pre-dated the CRA 2015 (despite the fact so did Beavis, and both cases used the same modern approach to penalty law).  Then he decided £160 wasn't unfair under the CRA even though the signs didn't even quantify the abusive added 'non-damages/admin fee' of +£60 (clearly falling foul of the CRA in my view, but what do I know, eh?).

Then he deferred judgment and went away and (off his own bat) read the BPA CoP and quoted it in his judgment, even though neither party had mentioned it (obviously...because VCS aren't even in the BPA!).

Another sigh...

B789

Precisely the reason why there should be some sort of crowd funded pot where the idiot judges have to have their flawed judgments reviewed, either by appeal or review.

We know it is expensive and there is no guarantee of being successful. However, posting on here how outraged we are at a stupid judges findings when there are clearly issues with errors in law does not further the matter.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Coupon-mad said:

B789 said:

Maybe we should organise a campaign fund to assist in appealing these dreadful judgments by idiot judges err on points of law and who have no expertise in the matters being adjudicated.

But Circuit Judges don't really appear to have a clue, or maybe some just don't care and think that people who don't pay unfair parking charges just need a slap.

The decision would likely be worse.

Look at the anti-consumer Beavis case where apparently "all Barry Beavis needed was a watch"... even though he was a genuine customer, delayed by a broken printing machine in Staples on site, and any one of the retailers would have cancelled the PCN , had anything on the signs told Barry that was an option.

Look at the car crash of a fudgement by HHJ Simpkiss in OPS v Wilshaw, where the Judge grinned and said he hadn't read all the submissions, which included (among other things) clear evidence that the signs & lines shown as "on site" in the WS bundle ... were not actually the signs and lines on site that day.  And the witness hadn't even signed the WS.  Never mind, eh...

He then lapped up every word of the PPC's very expensive parking expert barrister, including a very outdated reliance on 110-year old law about t&cs and signs (which is no longer good law and was kicked into touch by Lord Denning in the 1970s!).

Then he cheerfully admitted he had no background in civil cases then made Norma pay £3k (half OPS' costs) because apparently she'd been "unreasonable" for not rolling over when OPS appealed a judgment that I'd won on every single point, a slam-dunk at the earlier hearing.

He also thought that OPS were ParkingEye for the first 15 minutes of the hearing just because their barrister had been involved in the Beavis case, and apparently said things that made it clear to observers which way the decision was going.  

He also astonishingly declared in the awful judgment that slapped Norma months later, that parking firms (in his view) "do not need landowner authority" even though the BPA CoP was in evidence (the whole Code, in full) and clearly states it's mandatory ... obviously ... because the DVLA won't release data without the PPC having - yep - landowner authority!

Sigh...

Then look at HHJ Saffman in VCS v Percy, where he went against almost all the District Judges in his circuit (who were striking out inflated parking claims) and randomly decided that £100 was the cost of 'stage one' (PCN work) and £160 was apparently needed to cover 'stage 2' work, because "clearly this costs money".

Completely overlooking the fact that 'stage one' work is an AI system getting DVLA data for £2.50 and auto-posting a template PCN, for which the first stage money is £60 (the discount).  Not £100...which is blinking obviously for 'stage 2' work (the letter chain) which is no different than the letter chain seen in the Beavis case.

And no debt collector demands were even in evidence, much less anything to suggest VCS had paid any agent £60 (which PPCs never do).  So why "must this cost money" when £100 more than covers the automated letter chain model (same as Beavis)?

He apparently refused to even look at ParkingEye v Somerfield, chuckling that it pre-dated the CRA 2015 (despite the fact so did Beavis, and both cases used the same modern approach to penalty law).  Then he decided £160 wasn't unfair under the CRA even though the signs didn't even quantify the abusive added 'non-damages/admin fee' of +£60 (clearly falling foul of the CRA in my view, but what do I know, eh?).

Then he deferred judgment and went away and (off his own bat) read the BPA CoP and quoted it in his judgment, even though neither party had mentioned it (obviously...because VCS aren't even in the BPA!).

Another sigh...

One thanks wasn't enough. I felt the need to quote and thank again.

Until a few months ago, I had no idea of the extent of the PPC scams...but what's potentially worse, is the extent of ignorance amongst the judges who oversee these cases.

Mind you I really shouldn't be surprised after bearing witness to a case in the High Court.