And so it ends - Bristol Airport IAS Appeal success

Coupon-mad

D_P_Dance said:

I wonder what judges do about very long WSs, mainly from PPCs   

HHJ Simpkiss (in Norma's shocking appeal case) lapped up every word Ryan Hocking said and excused the length of his WS, and also brushed over the prolax QDR template used for the first hearing, as 'necessary'.   Never mind the fact it wasn't signed by the witness and attached misleading photos of signs and lines that had changed, and contained unproven hearsay and nothing about the 'lease' that they then sprung on Norma at the first hearing.  Yet she was accused of ambush...you really couldn't make it up.

But (thankfully) that Judge is very unusual in his stance and his judgment is so chock full of assumptions and wrong information - such as saying that parking firms don't need landowner authority and that the added £82 was a cost that had something to do with the DVLA look up and they must have incurred it, never mind the lack of evidence - that I sincerely hope that other Judges must have read his lengthy judgment and decided they are not persuaded by it for one second.

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

D_P_Dance said:

I wonder what judges do about very long WSs, mainly from PPCs   

HHJ Simpkiss (in Norma's shocking appeal case) lapped up every word Ryan Hocking said and excused the length of his WS, and also brushed over the prolax QDR template used for the first hearing, as 'necessary'.   Never mind the fact it wasn't signed by the witness and attached misleading photos of signs and lines that had changed, and contained unproven hearsay and nothing about the 'lease' that they then sprung on Norma at the first hearing.  Yet she was accused of ambush...you really couldn't make it up.

But (thankfully) that Judge is very unusual in his stance and his judgment is so chock full of assumptions and wrong information - such as saying that parking firms don't need landowner authority and that the added £82 was a cost that had something to do with the DVLA look up and they must have incurred it, never mind the lack of evidence - that I sincerely hope that other Judges must have read his lengthy judgment and decided they are not persuaded by it for one second.

I don't know if anyone watched the dispatches programme on Channel 4 last night. If we think that we have seen some bad judgments there seems to be some shocking decisions by judges in the family courts.

Sending police round to drag the children out kicking and screaming at midnight. That was cruel and the police were not happy with having to carry it out.  

Of 4000 questionnaires that were returned 50% of parents said that the judge had been hostile to them.
 
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/torn-apart-family-courts-uncovered-dispatches

Coupon-mad

It is truly depressing, and the decision by HHJ Simpkiss would have been damaging if it wasn't so full of errors and assumptions.  There was one point in the costs hearing where he apparently mused that he'd seen 'something' from the owner/director of OPS telling the court that they 'had to win' or it would become public knowledge that their charges were unenforceable. 

No such document was in evidence to my memory, so why did he read such stuff and take notice of it?   He upheld a case that had been won on all counts, and he didn't look at the evidence (he admitted that at the start of the hearing but had made his mind up. by the end, still without looking at the evidence otherwise he'd have identified the lack of substance in the WS...all of which was exposed in Norma's skeleton argument).

The idea of one decision rendering all charges 'unenforceable' is preposterous because if the Judge had looked properly at the evidence in the 3 months he had, he could quite simply have struck their claim out for any one of about six reasons, not least because the WS wasn't signed by the person whose name appeared on it.  That's without even looking at the out of date photos and twisted entrance sign et al.

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

It is truly depressing, and the decision by HHJ Simpkiss would have been damaging if it wasn't so full of errors and assumptions.  There was one point in the costs hearing where he apparently mused that he'd seen 'something' from the owner/director of OPS telling the court that they 'had to win' or it would become public knowledge that their charges were unenforceable. 

No such document was in evidence to my memory, so why did he read such stuff and take notice of it?   He upheld a case that had been won on all counts, and he didn't look at the evidence (he admitted that at the start of the hearing but had made his mind up. by the end, still without looking at the evidence otherwise he'd have identified the lack of substance in the WS...all of which was exposed in Norma's skeleton argument).

The idea of one decision rendering all charges 'unenforceable' is preposterous because if the Judge had looked properly at the evidence in the 3 months he had, he could quite simply have struck their claim out for any one of about six reasons, not least because the WS wasn't signed by the person whose name appeared on it.  That's without even looking at the out of date photos and twisted entrance sign et al.

It's a shame that the decision was not appealed but I fully understand that there was risk involved and that Norma could not have been exposed to more risk.

One of the women in the dispatches programme had spent £250K in costs in fighting her corner. That's what can happen when it get's out of hand.

Fruitcake

I made a site visit to the airport today. As I suspected, there are no VCS signs where my relative's car was stopped. I have dash-cam footage from the airport entrance to the drop off car park. I nipped out on foot and now have a nice set of photos of the whole of the Drop-off access road that clearly show there are no signs at all, which backs up the fact that the site map from the service agreement shows this road is outside the contracted patrol area.

When my driver left the drop-off car park, we had to give way to a Road Safety Unit van at a roundabout.



The driver stopped and waited even though she had right of way. I'm sure she wanted us to go first so she could follow our car. When we didn't play ball, she went round the roundabout and then stopped in a no stopping zone next to a VCS no stopping sign *Hypocrite* then followed us to the airport exit.

We did not stop, not even at a Stop sign. This was the the very same stop sign where another poster got a PCN because she stopped for nine seconds.

I tried to take a piccy of the van whilst it was stationary but it did not come out very well. She did not want her picture taken and put her hand up to cover her face as soon as she saw my camera.
I tried a few more shots out the back window as she followed our car, but there was too much glare. I did see her put her hand up again every time I raised my camera.


 

Coupon-mad

That’s a useful pic though, thanks @Fruitcake for showing us that VCS pass off their entrapment van as a Road Safety Unit van.

That breaches the Surveillance Camera CoP because as we all know, camera filming for parking charges can’t be covert and signs must state how the images will be used. Basically, the wording on that van is at best misleading at at worst...well...

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

That’s a useful pic though, thanks @Fruitcake for showing us that VCS pass off their entrapment van as a Road Safety Unit van.

That breaches the Surveillance Camera CoP because as we all know, camera filming for parking charges can’t be covert and signs must state how the images will be used. Basically, the wording on that van is at best misleading at at worst...well...

Thanks for that. I'll look it up and add it to my complaints.

My relative's MP got one of her minions to respond. They have asked about the other cases at this site but unfortunately I don't have the court claim numbers etcetera, nor do I know the names of the other MP(s) that were involved in similar complaints. The best I can do is point the MP's case worker to the relevant threads on here.

This is the problem when a poster wins, but we don't get the court claim numbers or even the name of the court in a lot of cases.

Snakes_Belly

Good picture Fruitcake. I am sure that it will also be useful for other posters who have fallen foul.  

"Road Safety Unit". I have heard Excel and VCS called some names but never heard them called that before.

 

Snakes_Belly

http://vehiclecontrolservices.co.uk/services/manned-patrols/

Definitely their van but does resemble a police van.

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

Coupon-mad said:

That’s a useful pic though, thanks @Fruitcake for showing us that VCS pass off their entrapment van as a Road Safety Unit van.

That breaches the Surveillance Camera CoP because as we all know, camera filming for parking charges can’t be covert and signs must state how the images will be used. Basically, the wording on that van is at best misleading at at worst...well...

Thanks for that. I'll look it up and add it to my complaints.

My relative's MP got one of her minions to respond. They have asked about the other cases at this site but unfortunately I don't have the court claim numbers etcetera, nor do I know the names of the other MP(s) that were involved in similar complaints. The best I can do is point the MP's case worker to the relevant threads on here.

This is the problem when a poster wins, but we don't get the court claim numbers or even the name of the court in a lot of cases.

So many of these MP's are scam blind, it reminds me of the sketch "Four Candles" with the two Ronnies .... total confusion 

Surveillance Camera CoP does indeed bring a whole new meaning for the scam