Court Claim for Old Milton Green Britannia parking unlawful camera

Le_Kirk

Good luck, let us know when you win!

ricky_balboa

Well i'm afraid i certainly didn't win.

I would like to start this post by thanking people on this forum for their support and advice. I appreciate and understand that the advice is free and given from well educated supporters who give up their spare time to assist where they can. I do believe that any losses are not their fault but more to do with the legal system in place in this country.

The judge started the telephone hearing (not Zoom) by referring to the different company numbers in the Landowner agreement and the PCN (and subsequent paperwork). He asked the claimant what they had to say on the matter.
The legal representative for Britannia was a Miss Cross. She was definitely not a junior paralegal. At one point the Judge and Miss Cross joked about how many years they have been doing these cases.
At the start the Judge seemed as though he was going to throw the whole case out for the different company entities until Miss Cross explained that if she put a parking sign on the grounds of Buckingham Palace then parking users have a contract with the sign and Miss Cross and therefore not the Queen. The judge like this explanation and then i had to defend this ridiculous example which i did try, including giving the case number of one which was thrown out for the same reason in Reading.
He said as he didn't have the case in front of him he now agreed with Miss Cross.
Basically if you stick up a sign anywhere on anyone's land you can start charging people for parking regardless of who owns the land.

The judge then decided the whole case revolved around whether i saw the signs or not in the car park. As soon as he said this i knew that my fate was sealed. Even though i started this whole process because neither my wife or myself ever saw a sign in the car park and therefore believed our innocence; i learnt through studying this forum that this could only be part of my defence and not build the whole case on it.
After Miss Cross showed him the photos from 9 months before the incident of signs that were not at all in my line of sight he then asked her if she wanted to ask me questions. He informed me that this was an informal hearing and he didn't see why she couldn't start to grill me. I don't know if i was naïve here but it all seemed rather odd. Especially later on when i tried to ask Miss Cross a question he told me that i couldn't.

At another point he brought up the question that the claimants said i had cut and pasted all my information and had no knowledge of the case....what do i have to say?!? he said.
I thought from previous cases the Judges had said "so what" regarding this matter. Instead i had to say politely that i was insulted by this notion as i have spent many many hours away from my family studying and researching this case. That i had no previous knowledge in law and i hadn't just cut and pasted information from the internet.

The Judge concluded that he didn't believe i didn't see the signs and that i must have done. He said all car parks over the last ten years now have great signage and there is no way people can park without seeing a sign and they should always expect to be charged for parking.
I am obviously angry at this conclusion as i know my own honesty and don't like it rejected even if it is a Judge giving this outcome.

The Judge and Miss Cross then chatted about how much i should be charged. It started off around £260 and then Miss Cross asked for 8% interest. The only thing i won in the whole hearing was the judge changing it to 2% interest. I believe the whole total will be about £289.

I then brought up the extra charge and the Beavis V cases. The judge just cut me down straight away and said he had decided it was fair and they could charge me that amount.

I have to summarise this whole sorry affair while it is still raw.

I went into the hearing with good advice from this forum. I did my research, i listened to advice and wrote what i believe was a good Defence, WS and SWS. I had over 40 notifications where my name was used as good examples of them in this forum.
I was always polite and spoke when asked by the Judge. My whole dining table was covered in documents i had studied for the hearing. I didn't freeze or not understand what was being said (apart from how Buckingham Palace blew my case away).

I appreciate there have been winnings on this forum but i now believe it doesn't matter what you can prove just what side of the bed the Judge woke up on, so winning is just the luck of the draw.

On this basis i'm sorry to say there is no way i would recommend anyone to fight a parking fine. I have spent probably 100 hours plus on this case and paying a £60 fine at the start would've given me back those hours with my family.

I started this process as i was innocent in not knowing that i had only 20 mins in this car park and parked for 35 mins. I appealed thinking that honesty must count for something. I have then consciously followed a path to £289 and many hours in deficit. 
It hurts mentally.

I wish everyone all the best in their cases, i'm sorry i bit the dust.

GeorgeFormby

Well it petrifies me to read this and I'm sorry you lost your case today.

I have been using your defence and WS in my preparations.

That whole experience sounds appalling.

Umkomaas

On this basis i'm sorry to say there is no way i would recommend anyone to fight a parking fine. I have spent probably 100 hours plus on this case and paying a £60 fine at the start would've given me back those hours with my family.

I am so, so sorry this was the outcome. I can't express the disappointment I feel when I read such apparent chumminess between advocates and judges. Despite the obvious amount of work you've put into this, maybe you could draw some comfort from the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

You did speak out, and more motorists in the future will benefit from your stance: you should hold your head high. 

Sorry it didn't work out.

Trainerman

We all feel for you @ricky_balboa. You fought a good fight but were undone by what appears to be a Judge who did not understand the issues and relevant law.

I know it probably will not help you now, but the work you did and the brilliant WS that others will no doubt copy ( and win with), mean that you are still helping to beat the scammers. Stick around and make sure you fill in the consultation .... with passion and real knowledge !

Fruitcake

I am stunned that the judge did not understand this part.

"Miss Cross explained that if she put a parking sign on the grounds of Buckingham Palace then parking users have a contract with the sign and Miss Cross and therefore not the Queen."

Motorists may well have a contract with the sign and Miss Cross, but they do not have a contract with Mrs Cross, or Mister Cross, or Chris Cross, or any other company with a different name and different company number.

Coupon-mad

We have seen the Buckingham Palace argument before (it is a general doctrine of law) but it's rare to find a Judge persuaded by it in a specific parking case.

I won't go into all the arguments against the Buckingham Palace argument, but in parking cases there is more than that to consider (e.g. KADOE rules require the creditor to have a written landowner agreement, for starters.  That can't be in the wrong name, if that was OK then any unregulated non-AOS firm with a similar name could stick signs up and handle DVLA data, which is absolutely disallowed). This industry has KADOE rules for a reason.

It's also rare to find a Judge deluded enough by the business model to allow the £70 extortion, for which there is no justification.  I suspect this Judge has always allowed it and simply won't hear a word against it now, as that would show him to be wrong in all other cases before.

You also can't add interest to the £70 extortion.  Even if the odd Judge thinks it is 'fair' (on what planet?) it was not in play on the day of the parking event so cannot have interest calculated - and wasn't that interest sum already in the POC anyway, on the claim form?

The added £70 is undoubtedly 'extortion' as Neil O'Brien declared it to be, and very much against POFA, the Beavis case, the Somerfield case and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as well as intended to be banned by Government for 'extorting money' and attempting to avoid the small claims legal fee cap.

It is a way to fund unnecessary gaslighting, aggression, threats and (in multiples, given the very high numbers of cases robo-claim 'legals' turn over) it directly encourages and funds litigation like this and a swamping of the court system. 

I am so very sorry that you lost your case despite a valiant effort; this must be raw today.

This is an example of 'Judge.Bingo' as you say, the luck of which Judge you get on the day, and which side of bed he got out of and how easily led he is by a legally qualified rep who talks the talk.

I hope that you will use your case and bruising experience and channel your anger about this 'race to court' and £70 extortion mentality, to join us in the upcoming final Public Consultation, to help strengthen the Govt's legal position?

I suspect it won't be until the Autumn but please take part. You can help persuade the Govt that this funded race to court must stop.

For example, if your PCN had been £50 discounted to £25 I suspect it's true to say you'd probably have paid it?  Me too, unless I felt it was very wrong. A parking charge should not be so high that people feel affronted by greed and won't pay.

That is the message to get across, and that adding £70 to fund gaslighting and court case aggression is absolute extortion, and effectively creates £170 PCNs, which is the opposite of the intention of the Knight Act.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

I am stunned that the judge did not understand this part.

"Miss Cross explained that if she put a parking sign on the grounds of Buckingham Palace then parking users have a contract with the sign and Miss Cross and therefore not the Queen."

Motorists may well have a contract with the sign and Miss Cross, but they do not have a contract with Mrs Cross, or Mister Cross, or Chris Cross, or any other company with a different name and different company number.

Trespassing on the grounds of Buckingham Palace is a criminal offence-resulting in up to 6 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

DE_612183

are we able to publish the judges name?
may be worthwhile for future cases,

i assume that Miss Cross was aware of who it was in advance and how he could be manipulated.

Perhaps we need to know that different judges require different approaches for identical cases?

Not_A_Hope

Seems to me that this particular Judge Bingo needs to consider the 'fairness' of some unregulated company putting signs up outside their home without permission and a completely separate company issuing £100 PCNs to him, his family and even the milkman. Then aggressively chasing escalated claims through the court system.

He / she got it wrong and should be named and shamed. They obviously haven't been scammed by these parasites yet.