Backcester Lane, Lichfield, Excel Parking

Stefano123

And when its completed the WS can go off by email to: "CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk" <CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk>? I can't seem to find that info in the other threads other than to say that's where the Defence is filed. 

Coupon-mad

Unless this is a CCJ set aside case, Witness statements are never sent to the CCBC. Defences are. Not witness bundles.

Witness statements and your exhibits and costs assessment go to the LOCAL court that is sending you the Directions.

The CCBC was just an admin centre processing gateway at the very start and has nothing to do with the case after that, or at hearing stage.

Stefano123

And another one bites the dust! The judge dismissed the claim! Thank you everyone so much!!!! 

Jenni_D

Well done - can you give us a court report please (once you've stopped laughing/celebrating)?

Did you get any costs?

Stefano123

Yes I was awarded loss of earnings and my travel expenses. Where do I get a court report from?

Jenni_D

Stefano123 said:

Yes I was awarded loss of earnings and my travel expenses. Where do I get a court report from?

You write it ... simply tell us what you remember - judge name, other side's advocate name, who said what, why the judge found in your favour, the claim ref., etc.

(See other threads with Another One Bites The Dust - many of those have written court reports).

Stefano123

When I arrived, the other side offered to settle but put forth no offer. I declined anything short of dismissing the claim completely. My initial impression was that the person who was instructed was very inexperienced, a little bumbling and frankly not very well prepared. He had a name of African descent, which I was unfamiliar with, so I have no idea how to spell it nor can I remember it. It was different to the person who had compiled the WS that's for sure.

When I entered the hearing room I sensed the judge was favourable to me, given he commended the quality of my witness bundle and my defence. He was not so impressed by the state of the claimant’s witness statement. He started by suggesting to the claimant that I had made 3-4 very strong points and the burden was on them to prove otherwise.

To be perfectly honest, I thought the arguments made by the other side made little sense and a little forced. Their WS contained no picture of the entrance to the carpark, so when they tried to argue signage was present, the judge showed them my pictures and he still said the tiny signage was sufficient. The judge wasn’t impressed. Although I’ve never been in court before I have to say I expected a more professional and organised case to be made by the claimant. The claimant said I didn’t send them my witness statement, too, which is rubbish because I posted it to them. Their case constructed around the fact I took 10 minutes to attempt payment (a sudden pivot when they saw I could evidence I attempted payment).

The judge agreed with me that there was insufficient signage at the entrance to the carpark. He agreed that I could not have known that the terms and conditions at the site had changed and accepted my testimony - which explained I sat in my car trying to pay on the app previously used at the site and that it took time for me to go to the ticket machine, see new terms, go back to my car to root or change, and then return with no change and attempt contactless payment. This satisfied him why it took me 10 minutes to attempt payment. He said it was unfair for them to apply their 10-minute consideration period to me until the moment I became aware of the new terms and conditions given they had not compiled fully with IPC code of practice. 

The judge also accepted my evidence that the ticket machine was incapable of giving me notice of payment success or failure as a ticketless machine and accepted my evidence from my bank that I had indeed attempted payment. He also seemed to accept my evidence showing registration errors on their website as proof that I also attempted to pay that way, too. All in all, he accepted my contention that 18 minutes was not an unreasonable amount of time to spend on site trying to pay under the circumstances. He also commended me for leaving the carpark when it was clear I could not pay. He commented that many fail to do this.  

He seemed to show frustration with the Claimant and showed sympathy to the person who they instructed, who I thought did a really poor job of making the case against me. He also commented on the state of the WS that they had submitted and said it was very hard to navigate. Given the legal representative had never been to the carpark he really struggled to respond to the questions about photos and where they corresponded to on the site map they had submitted.

We never really got into the nitty gritty of landowner authority nor quantum, he was very satisfied with my credibility as witness and my rather common-sense arguments.

What surprised me, and what was telling, was when the legal representative upon hearing the judgement in my favour asked about appealing the decision and tried to suggest that the judge came to a decision that no other judge would come to. The judge denied this appeal. He then seemed to try and reargue his case after the judgment and say he had only been instructed to agree £95 costs as I was awarded £115. The judge then had to remind him that he makes the decisions!   

Jenni_D

That's a good court report.  

Stefano123 said:

He then seemed to try and reargue his case after the judgment and say he had only been instructed to agree £95 costs as I was awarded £115. The judge then had to remind him that he makes the decisions!   

They're lucky the judge didn't change his mind and award costs for unreasonable behaviour.  

Coupon-mad

Hahaha - BRILLIANT!  Well done.

Excel at Lichfield was surely a case doomed to fail, given their woeful old machines, crappy signage and that the whole set-up and negative publicity was so bad, that their contract was ended/not renewed.

ANOTHER EXCEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

Congratulations!

And...

...please don't leave us yet!  Stick around.

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens later this year, once the new Ministers are fully appraised.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers! You have a personal story to tell about the culture of getting a DRA to add a pointless £70 for their own profit, to be let loose to intimidate people.

Snakes_Belly

That's brilliant Stefano. You put the work in so very well done

The rep was deluded if they thought an appeal would be allowed. 

Which court was this?