Claim form from Civil Enforcement received - Newbury Retail Park - equality discrimination

Coupon-mad

What happened?

Gnomi777

Coupon-mad said:

What happened?

Sorry for the delayed update. I was also in court for something else (rather more stressful) on Friday. A fun day...

So...they did turn up (or rather one of their representative solicitors did). I was rather amazed by this, but also rather apprehensive.
The first thing the Judge said to their solicitor was that there had been no response in their Witness Statement to address point 1 of my Defence (from the template on here), which asked for evidence that they have an agreement or contract with the landowner that they can issue PCNs. This is a fundamental bit of evidence, which the Judge said he'd never not seen included and is vital in proving that they can even issue PCNs at all.
Their solicitor asked for 5 minutes to confer with his employer. Granted (although the Judge did say it was unlikely to make any difference).
On returning, their solicitor made an attempt to infer that having signs up (poorly visible and placed) and the photos showing these signs (irrelevant and could have been taken anywhere) was enough to prove they had the right to issue PCNs. The Judge disagreed, and when he asked me for comment I cited a case where a person put signs up on a piece of land advertising parking, had a booth and a chair and collected money from people on entering for years and years. Suddenly disappeared and people were asking the Council where 'John' from the parking had gone. They knew nothing about any parking, or a 'John' and it turned out he was just an opportunist, that had made millions from charging for cheap parking on land that wasn't his! In effect Civil Enforcement Ltd could be doing exactly the same, so having a sign up and then saying they have a contract is just hearsay.

After much blustering by the solicitor, the Judge made the decision that their case couldn't continue, due to lack of the evidence that they are entitled to issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner.

I did have the opportunity to ask about what might have happened, had this been included, in terms of the issue I raised regarding discrimination under the Equality Act and breastfeeding. The Judge said that they also hadn't addressed this in their Witness Statement and he would have expected them to (especially as they had the WS prepared by a barrister), but if they had they would have needed to present a lot of information relating to the law and Equality Act. He actually said that it was an interesting angle, that he'd not come across before!

I did ask about costs too, but could only have claimed (under point 27.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules) if the other party had acted unreasonably. I did say that as CIL were aware from the Defence information that I was breastfeeding my baby at the time, and they were breaching the Equality Act in enforcing the same rules on me that would apply to the general public, that they could have reviewed their stance earlier on and withdrawn the PCN based on this, but them not doing this wouldn't necessarily be classed as 'acting unreasonably'. The Judge did offer that I could claim for parking and fuel, but I declined, as I just wanted to draw a line under it.

A long, long process, finally over (since December 2020). I'd like to thank everyone for their incredible knowledge and help along the way. HiveMind knowledge is an incredible thing, but also the sharing of specialist knowledge is a very kind and valued gift.

I just hope CIL aren't scouting these forums, trying to get insight into what went wrong and upping their game. It was odd that they took it all the way to court... Maybe they should try a different approach and start charging for the parking instead of relying on issuing PCNs. They'd probably make more money and lose less of it in solicitors, barristers and court fees. 

Snakes_Belly

Thank you for your report and well done on your win.

"The first thing the Judge said to their solicitor was that there had been no response in their Witness Statement to address point 1 of my Defence (from the template on here), which asked for evidence that they have an agreement or contract with the landowner that they can issue PCNs. This is a fundamental bit of evidence, which the Judge said he'd never not seen included and is vital in proving that they can even issue PCNs at all"

Perhaps it had been dropped into the North Sea

If a party to the hearing is asked for evidence that they do not later provide they lose credibility.   

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win and thanks for a good report; always lovely to read about so-called professionals getting slapped down.

Coupon-mad

Gnomi777 said:

Coupon-mad said:

What happened?

Sorry for the delayed update. I was also in court for something else (rather more stressful) on Friday. A fun day...

So...they did turn up (or rather one of their representative solicitors did). I was rather amazed by this, but also rather apprehensive.
The first thing the Judge said to their solicitor was that there had been no response in their Witness Statement to address point 1 of my Defence (from the template on here), which asked for evidence that they have an agreement or contract with the landowner that they can issue PCNs. This is a fundamental bit of evidence, which the Judge said he'd never not seen included and is vital in proving that they can even issue PCNs at all.
Their solicitor asked for 5 minutes to confer with his employer. Granted (although the Judge did say it was unlikely to make any difference).
On returning, their solicitor made an attempt to infer that having signs up (poorly visible and placed) and the photos showing these signs (irrelevant and could have been taken anywhere) was enough to prove they had the right to issue PCNs. The Judge disagreed, and when he asked me for comment I cited a case where a person put signs up on a piece of land advertising parking, had a booth and a chair and collected money from people on entering for years and years. Suddenly disappeared and people were asking the Council where 'John' from the parking had gone. They knew nothing about any parking, or a 'John' and it turned out he was just an opportunist, that had made millions from charging for cheap parking on land that wasn't his! In effect Civil Enforcement Ltd could be doing exactly the same, so having a sign up and then saying they have a contract is just hearsay.

After much blustering by the solicitor, the Judge made the decision that their case couldn't continue, due to lack of the evidence that they are entitled to issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner.

I did have the opportunity to ask about what might have happened, had this been included, in terms of the issue I raised regarding discrimination under the Equality Act and breastfeeding. The Judge said that they also hadn't addressed this in their Witness Statement and he would have expected them to (especially as they had the WS prepared by a barrister), but if they had they would have needed to present a lot of information relating to the law and Equality Act. He actually said that it was an interesting angle, that he'd not come across before!

I did ask about costs too, but could only have claimed (under point 27.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules) if the other party had acted unreasonably. I did say that as CIL were aware from the Defence information that I was breastfeeding my baby at the time, and they were breaching the Equality Act in enforcing the same rules on me that would apply to the general public, that they could have reviewed their stance earlier on and withdrawn the PCN based on this, but them not doing this wouldn't necessarily be classed as 'acting unreasonably'. The Judge did offer that I could claim for parking and fuel, but I declined, as I just wanted to draw a line under it.

A long, long process, finally over (since December 2020). I'd like to thank everyone for their incredible knowledge and help along the way. HiveMind knowledge is an incredible thing, but also the sharing of specialist knowledge is a very kind and valued gift.

I just hope CIL aren't scouting these forums, trying to get insight into what went wrong and upping their game. It was odd that they took it all the way to court... Maybe they should try a different approach and start charging for the parking instead of relying on issuing PCNs. They'd probably make more money and lose less of it in solicitors, barristers and court fees. 

YAY, WELL DONE YOU!  ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Thanks for the update and 'court report' of what went on.

Don't disappear just yet.

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.

Gnomi777

Coupon-mad said:

Gnomi777 said:

Coupon-mad said:

What happened?

Sorry for the delayed update. I was also in court for something else (rather more stressful) on Friday. A fun day...

So...they did turn up (or rather one of their representative solicitors did). I was rather amazed by this, but also rather apprehensive.
The first thing the Judge said to their solicitor was that there had been no response in their Witness Statement to address point 1 of my Defence (from the template on here), which asked for evidence that they have an agreement or contract with the landowner that they can issue PCNs. This is a fundamental bit of evidence, which the Judge said he'd never not seen included and is vital in proving that they can even issue PCNs at all.
Their solicitor asked for 5 minutes to confer with his employer. Granted (although the Judge did say it was unlikely to make any difference).
On returning, their solicitor made an attempt to infer that having signs up (poorly visible and placed) and the photos showing these signs (irrelevant and could have been taken anywhere) was enough to prove they had the right to issue PCNs. The Judge disagreed, and when he asked me for comment I cited a case where a person put signs up on a piece of land advertising parking, had a booth and a chair and collected money from people on entering for years and years. Suddenly disappeared and people were asking the Council where 'John' from the parking had gone. They knew nothing about any parking, or a 'John' and it turned out he was just an opportunist, that had made millions from charging for cheap parking on land that wasn't his! In effect Civil Enforcement Ltd could be doing exactly the same, so having a sign up and then saying they have a contract is just hearsay.

After much blustering by the solicitor, the Judge made the decision that their case couldn't continue, due to lack of the evidence that they are entitled to issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner.

I did have the opportunity to ask about what might have happened, had this been included, in terms of the issue I raised regarding discrimination under the Equality Act and breastfeeding. The Judge said that they also hadn't addressed this in their Witness Statement and he would have expected them to (especially as they had the WS prepared by a barrister), but if they had they would have needed to present a lot of information relating to the law and Equality Act. He actually said that it was an interesting angle, that he'd not come across before!

I did ask about costs too, but could only have claimed (under point 27.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules) if the other party had acted unreasonably. I did say that as CIL were aware from the Defence information that I was breastfeeding my baby at the time, and they were breaching the Equality Act in enforcing the same rules on me that would apply to the general public, that they could have reviewed their stance earlier on and withdrawn the PCN based on this, but them not doing this wouldn't necessarily be classed as 'acting unreasonably'. The Judge did offer that I could claim for parking and fuel, but I declined, as I just wanted to draw a line under it.

A long, long process, finally over (since December 2020). I'd like to thank everyone for their incredible knowledge and help along the way. HiveMind knowledge is an incredible thing, but also the sharing of specialist knowledge is a very kind and valued gift.

I just hope CIL aren't scouting these forums, trying to get insight into what went wrong and upping their game. It was odd that they took it all the way to court... Maybe they should try a different approach and start charging for the parking instead of relying on issuing PCNs. They'd probably make more money and lose less of it in solicitors, barristers and court fees. 

YAY, WELL DONE YOU!  ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Thanks for the update and 'court report' of what went on.

Don't disappear just yet.

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.

Have bookmarked (not sure how to set up an alert, but will have a read up) and more than happy to help in whatever way I can.
Thank you again for your help on this journey!