CST Law Claim on behalf of Euro Car Parks for £1.2K for parking on private land

Yawn1

I can confirm I had my hearing today and.... ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! As it were 

It was rather nerve wrecking but the judge was understanding - could probably tell from my underarm sweat patches that this was my first time ever in a court setting. 

The judge was very thorough and meticulous. He had read through both our WS statement. I essentially didn't have to deliver any defence as the claimant's evidence was severely lacking despite 60+ pages.

There were a number of failings in the claimant's WS - notably:

- One couldn't determine from the images of the signs that they were in the car park.
- The satellite image of the car park did could have been of any car park, and didn't have details as to where signs were located.
- The images of the vehicle was just of it entering and leaving a pathway, but you couldn't tell from the images I had entered the alleged car park.
- The time stamp of the images of the signs were from a year ago - so considering the first contravention occurred in 2017, there's lack of evidence it was the signs were there back then.
- It also didn't help that witness failed to attend court - and judge acknowledged early on that particulars of the claim were very vague. 

Ultimately the case was dismissed primarily due to the fact that the WS/ lawyer was unable to provide clear proof that the claimant was acting on behalf of the landowner, and had the right to levy PCNs against visitors. I mentioned earlier in the thread that an "assignment" between two parties (seemingly derived from same entity) was shared as proof as there was a line about 'directing ECP to collect' but it was incredibly weak, and ECP wasn't even involved in the signatures in the agreement.


So that's it in a nutshell, case dismissed!! Just wanted to express my gratitude for all the help and advice in the last 14 months. I recognise I could've been more proactive at times, but everyone here has been very supportive. Glad to close this chapter, and to not have to part with £1.2K! 

Grizebeck

Wow great result!

Coupon-mad

Yawn1 said:

I can confirm I had my hearing today and.... ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! As it were 

It was rather nerve wrecking but the judge was understanding - could probably tell from my underarm sweat patches that this was my first time ever in a court setting. 

The judge was very thorough and meticulous. He had read through both our WS statement. I essentially didn't have to deliver any defence as the claimant's evidence was severely lacking despite 60+ pages.

There were a number of failings in the claimant's WS - notably:

- One couldn't determine from the images of the signs that they were in the car park.
- The satellite image of the car park did could have been of any car park, and didn't have details as to where signs were located.
- The images of the vehicle was just of it entering and leaving a pathway, but you couldn't tell from the images I had entered the alleged car park.
- The time stamp of the images of the signs were from a year ago - so considering the first contravention occurred in 2017, there's lack of evidence it was the signs were there back then.
- It also didn't help that witness failed to attend court - and judge acknowledged early on that particulars of the claim were very vague. 

Ultimately the case was dismissed primarily due to the fact that the WS/ lawyer was unable to provide clear proof that the claimant was acting on behalf of the landowner, and had the right to levy PCNs against visitors. I mentioned earlier in the thread that an "assignment" between two parties (seemingly derived from same entity) was shared as proof as there was a line about 'directing ECP to collect' but it was incredibly weak, and ECP wasn't even involved in the signatures in the agreement.


So that's it in a nutshell, case dismissed!! Just wanted to express my gratitude for all the help and advice in the last 14 months. I recognise I could've been more proactive at times, but everyone here has been very supportive. Glad to close this chapter, and to not have to part with £1.2K! 

Hooray!

Please read this, and do what we need everyone here to do, as your next chapter:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79467810#Comment_79467810

Umkomaas

Absolutely fantastic result, especially as the cost of losing could have been so significant. 

Have a couple of snifters to celebrate tonight. I'm joining you! 🥃 

patient_dream

Another WOW ...... good news.    

A lesson to all the so called legals .... "don't make a claim unless you are 100% certain"

Yawn1

Coupon-mad said:

Yawn1 said:

I can confirm I had my hearing today and.... ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! As it were 

It was rather nerve wrecking but the judge was understanding - could probably tell from my underarm sweat patches that this was my first time ever in a court setting. 

The judge was very thorough and meticulous. He had read through both our WS statement. I essentially didn't have to deliver any defence as the claimant's evidence was severely lacking despite 60+ pages.

There were a number of failings in the claimant's WS - notably:

- One couldn't determine from the images of the signs that they were in the car park.
- The satellite image of the car park did could have been of any car park, and didn't have details as to where signs were located.
- The images of the vehicle was just of it entering and leaving a pathway, but you couldn't tell from the images I had entered the alleged car park.
- The time stamp of the images of the signs were from a year ago - so considering the first contravention occurred in 2017, there's lack of evidence it was the signs were there back then.
- It also didn't help that witness failed to attend court - and judge acknowledged early on that particulars of the claim were very vague. 

Ultimately the case was dismissed primarily due to the fact that the WS/ lawyer was unable to provide clear proof that the claimant was acting on behalf of the landowner, and had the right to levy PCNs against visitors. I mentioned earlier in the thread that an "assignment" between two parties (seemingly derived from same entity) was shared as proof as there was a line about 'directing ECP to collect' but it was incredibly weak, and ECP wasn't even involved in the signatures in the agreement.


So that's it in a nutshell, case dismissed!! Just wanted to express my gratitude for all the help and advice in the last 14 months. I recognise I could've been more proactive at times, but everyone here has been very supportive. Glad to close this chapter, and to not have to part with £1.2K! 

Hooray!

Please read this, and do what we need everyone here to do, as your next chapter:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79467810#Comment_79467810

Of course, done as requested.