Excel Claim from 2017 going to court

QuincyCockers

Finished and lost! Judge wasn't interested about case law or new guidance or the Claimant's contradictory evidence. Only that there was signage up and I hadn't paid when I was supposed to. He awarded them £272 even though their claim was £245 (£160 plus court fee and legal representation). Gutted.

Coupon-mad

So sorry.

You fell foul of 'DJ bingo' (the luck of the draw - some Judges are not clued up on the parking industry) and maybe got a snake of a legal rep who twisted the truth and case law to suit?

Which court and Judge?

You did pay before leaving.  Did he think that wasn't good enough/soon enough, or was it the VRM error that he decided was such a heinous crime that you can be penalised?

Why did he think the false added £60 was allowable?

Surely the fact that it is 'extortion' according to the DLUHC gave him a steer?

QuincyCockers

It was Middlesbrough and Judge Swan and conducted over the phone. 

He wasn’t interested that Excel hadn’t provided me an electronic copy with a proper index stating that paper was often better anyway, albeit working off electronic himself. My impression was he had only skim read the case minutes before we were on and had formed an early opinion.  

He felt the signage was adequate enough even though it clearly isn’t from a drivers POV and that I should have paid when I parked up - regardless that I pointed out that their Particular of Claim didn’t mention a grace period and they were going after the keying error (not inputting correct VRM) not the time of payment as it wasn’t set out.

He hadn’t opened or viewed the exhibits beforehand and was opening emails and going back and forth throughout to find the right ones. Every time I spoke he cut in and stopped me from flowing or delivering my points. 

He wasn’t interested in disputing the add on cost even though the £60 is not specified on their signage but instead accepted the claimants argument that under Terms and conditions it intimates “additional costs”.

He cut in on anything that was laying out contract law, past cases, technical arguments and even the clear contradictions within their evidence. Just wasn’t interested in any of it. I didn’t get to the DLUHC steer because of this as before I knew it he was deliberating.

In the end he was clarifying with the claimant’s legal team just how much the total charge should be and eventually came up with £27 extra on top of the claim they had put to court which added insult to injury.

The case was running 3 and half hours late and I just got the impression he made his mind up before listening to the evidence and wanted to rush it through to catch up on the backlog.

It was a farce from start to finish in my opinion and from the moment that Judge was selected I had already lost.

Coupon-mad

Yes, I feared that might have happened. So sorry.

Occasionally, sad to say, people get an opinionated Judge who has read nothing beforehand and favours the represented Claimant from the outset.  Such Judges are rare.  Most view parking claims as a complete scam.

Nothing you could have said would have worked.

Snakes_Belly

Sorry that you lost especially to an aggressive ex clamper like VCS.

I think that some judges are irritated by parking claims and think that they should be sorted out before court stage. They do not all realise that there is no independant appeals service or ombudsman and courts are the only option to receive a modicum of fairness. Sadly in your hearing that did not happen. 

Telephone hearings don't help as it it always better to communicate face to face. 

Hopefully when the new Code of Practice and Single Appeals Service is introduced it will greatly reduce the pipeline of claims that reach the courts. 

patient_dream

Sad News and clearly a judge not fit for purpose, there are still a few around 

VCS simply struck it lucky with a judge who did not understand

For those currently dealing with VCS/EXCEL ..... if you get a good clued up judge it will be VCS/EXCEL who will lose
The vast majority of judges really are clued up

Snakes_Belly

patient_dream said:

Sad News and clearly a judge not fit for purpose, there are still a few around 

VCS simply struck it lucky with a judge who did not understand

For those currently dealing with VCS/EXCEL ..... if you get a good clued up judge it will be VCS/EXCEL who will lose
The vast majority of judges really are clued up

Most judges now (even if the hearing is in favour of the Claimant) knock out the £60.00 debt collection charge. You would really expect a judge that hears small claims would keep up to date with current changes that may affect their decisions.