County Court Case - Gladstones acting for Euro Parking Services [Update - I WON]

patient_dream

Had to laugh, well done, you got Gladstones yet another spanking and a spanking for Euro Parking

I guess most judges now find these parking companies and THE dodgy legals a HUGE JOKE NOW

Johnersh

Well done. I differ only with your conclusion as to the legal position.

The point is that there is not settled law for all the points raised. Legal argument is about persuading the court with reference to similar cases - authorities. It very often involves shades of grey.

On some issues law will be persuasive, on others it will be determinative.  Were it otherwise you wouldn't have been asking a court to disregard a supreme court authority. 

You were undoubtedly assisted with very poor presentation of the claim by the claimant, but it is also clear you did the legwork to displace the alleged factual position. Everyone should do at least that - the vast majority of statements are prepared by paralegals who merely regurgitate what is on their computer, which may well be different yo the position on the ground. 

Coupon-mad

CONGRATULATIONS! Another one bites the dust! You won!

Thanks so much for the hearing summary.

In fact, case law (ParkingEye v Somerfield) and statute law (POFA 2012) does support our argument about the added fake £60 or £70 being unrecoverable but it isn't the Crosby case, that's old news.  Britannia v Crosby should not be used.  People who lose normally still never see the £60/£70 allowed by Judges.

Newer info is of course the fact the Govt intends to ban the add-on and declared it 'extorting money from motorists' in February when you last posted here.

Did you know that and used it in court?  

Did you know it's been stalled by the bullyboys throwing money at two Judicial Reviews?

Now you've won this battle, please don't disappear just yet. A final Public Consultation is coming.

We need you; motorists need you to help us make a difference forever.  What a waste of your time this was, and why should there be such a litigation culture in parking?   It's truly horrible being pursued for £100 for no reason, by an ex-clamper aggressive firm, isn't it? 

Join us in trying to end the conniving PPC and DRA 'added fees' fuelling the court culture. 

There will be one window of opportunity later this year.  My best guess is in October.

Together, we can stop the rotten parking industry from riding roughshod over the new statutory Code and the charge level caps, and otherwise bullying all motorists forever, using the regulation to gain kudos and status.

If you are not likely to pop back here every week to check, please set up email alerts for this forum and bookmark this thread (below) as we intend that one of us posts on it when the Government opens the Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

Read the latest posts there.

The PPC money-grabbers have blocked the new Code by filing for Judicial Reviews.  Stopped the declared and much welcomed parking code from February 2022, which stated that added £70 false 'DRA fee' extortion was to be banned and that parking levels would start at £50.

It's on hold. Motorists urgently need it reinstated and the ban on false 'DRA fees' confirmed, to stop the rot.

This year will be your chance to make a difference, plus any other drivers you know (family, friends) who are also fed up to the back teeth with the greedy and unscrupulous parking industry and the stranglehold they have on people.

We need high numbers of real victims to make a point of responding to this final Consultation.

Snakes_Belly

Well done on your win. I agree with what you say that defendants need to give the judges something to work with.

mrdeepee

Johnersh said:

Well done. I differ only with your conclusion as to the legal position.

The point is that there is not settled law for all the points raised. Legal argument is about persuading the court with reference to similar cases - authorities. It very often involves shades of grey.

On some issues law will be persuasive, on others it will be determinative.  Were it otherwise you wouldn't have been asking a court to disregard a supreme court authority. 

You were undoubtedly assisted with very poor presentation of the claim by the claimant, but it is also clear you did the legwork to displace the alleged factual position. Everyone should do at least that - the vast majority of statements are prepared by paralegals who merely regurgitate what is on their computer, which may well be different yo the position on the ground. 

To be fair, the judge didn't dwell on the parts of my defence where I referred to previous cases.

I suspect she'd already found reason elsewhere to deny the claim and didn't want to argue case law.

She said the Crosby case wasn't applicable to our case and so it wouldn't persuade her to deny the claimant the £60 "contractual costs".

She further added that whilst the total amount they were claiming may appear excessive to an observer, existing case law will support the claimants argument that the amount met its legitimate business interests.

Lastly, she said she was satisfied that the claimant had standing to bring the claim and won't deny this based on the redacted contract they submitted.

Listening to her give her ruling was like watching Colombo lay out his case after solving a murder case.

I thought we'd lost when she started off dismissing most of my arguments, which elicited a constant and annoying smirk on the face of the claimant's representative.

Her swift turn around to giving reasons for denying the claim caught everyone by surprise, especially the claimant's representative, who quickly lost the smirk he'd had on since she started speaking.

I got the feeling she was massively unimpressed by the quality of the claimants legal representation, and she saw this all the time.

Also, you'd think Europarking Services will act on the ruling and put up the missing 5 signs, but they haven't. Three months after they lost the case, I still see 4 signs whenever I drive past the site.

Coupon-mad

She further added that whilst the total amount they were claiming may appear excessive to an observer, existing case law will support the claimants argument that the amount met its legitimate business interests.

To which I'd have taken her to the High Court decision in ParkingEye v Somerfield, and the POFA maximum sum that can be recovered, and the new DLUHC Code where the Govt intend to ban the add-on and called it 'extortion' this February!

But you won anyway, and what comedy gold for you - seeing the Judge wipe the smirk from the Claimant's face!