Napier Court Claim Form

Taiko

Portsmouth. I saw the case on Courtserve earlier on, was tempting to request to join it and observe, hadn't realised it was yourself. 

How awfully unfortunate. Any right to an appeal? 

Coupon-mad

We'll have to start telling people in Portsmouth to deliberately choose Southampton as their nearest court in future (unless they are both in the same circuit area & that Judge is at Soton too).

DDJ Dack appears to be a localised problem, and IMHO he's wrong, and is causing detriment to consumers with these reported 'wide of the mark' pro parking firm judgments. 

Taiko

I haven't seen him listed there for a long time, so I'm not sure if it's a regular thing. 

Really keen to know what was said also here! Awful decision. 

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

So sorry.  He even thought the false added £60 wasn't extortion. What a terrible Judge. Which court area does he cover?

Especially bad luck, given your first Judge was very good and second one useless:

I went to the conciliation meeting, told the solicitor I'm not paying anything and then had to sit in court for the full 20 minutes while the judge basically scratched his head and pointed out to the solicitor that as I had a pre existing right to park he could not work out why they were persisting in pursuing this.

What on earth did DDJ Dack say at this hearing, about your pre-existing right to park?

Apparently 28th September last year judge Sathman(?), a district judge or whatever it's called, ruled the additional costs are ok because it says so on the sign.

The lease stated landlord could make changes at any time so right to park was irrelevant according to him.

agent17

Taiko said:

Portsmouth. I saw the case on Courtserve earlier on, was tempting to request to join it and observe, hadn't realised it was yourself. 

How awfully unfortunate. Any right to an appeal? 

I don't know, it's all new to me lol. I also brought up the fact that in the SAR request I had this:

"A list of ALL PCNs outstanding against me and/or this VRN, and be reminded that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims"

Which is relevant because I have a second pcn issued a couple months after that, which I included in the email along with this one.

But the solicitor said they are free to pursue 100 cases if they wish and are not bound to claim just once. The judge pretty much just ignored the point and carried on bumbling around trying to find files on his computer while the solicitor babbled on.

So, looks like I have this to look forward to again...

Help? Anyone?... lol

Umkomaas

But the solicitor said they are free to pursue 100 cases if they wish and are not bound to claim just once.

Then he needs to go back to read his law books! Henderson v Henderson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_v_Henderson

Also look up 'Cause of action estoppel'.

Coupon-mad

So DDJ Dack is persuaded by HHJ Saffman at Bradford in VCS v Percy.  He's a rare breed who thinks that judgment is persuasive!

@bargepole and I are fully aware of that case.

HHJ Saffman seemed to bend over backwards to find that VCS are able to claim the £60 add-on in that case, because the Code of Practice says they can.

There was no evidence put forward that £60 had been incurred.  Not even a single DRA letter was in evidence, it was all apparently just presumed to have 'cost money' over and above the £100 PCN (that is already set high enough to more than cover such costs plus a very healthy profit...).

There were a number of grounds upon which this could have been appealed further, but there was no point in doing so, as appeal is risky and expensive, can bite you on the bum if it goes wrong and it will ultimately the false added DRA fees will be determined by the new DLUHC Code of Practice.

HHJ Saffman even went and did his own irrelevant and wrong research after the hearing and before handing down judgment.

We know this because he quoted in some detail from the BPA CoP in his judgment.  Neither side mentioned nor relied on the BPA CoP of course, because VCS are IPC.

It's a dog's dinner of a fudgement IMHO.

agent17

Umkomaas said:

But the solicitor said they are free to pursue 100 cases if they wish and are not bound to claim just once.

Then he needs to go back to read his law books! Henderson v Henderson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_v_Henderson

Also look up 'Cause of action estoppel'.

So when I get the next letter from BW Legal, I mention these two things? The solicitor, and judge, seemed to think nothing can stop them pursuing every individual pcn issued.

Fruitcake

Yes, mention both Henderson v Henderson and cause of action estoppel. I suggest you also pick a different court in the hope you get a different judge.

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

So DDJ Dack is persuaded by HHJ Saffman at Bradford in VCS v Percy.  He's a rare breed who thinks that judgment is persuasive!

@bargepole and I are fully aware of that case.

HHJ Saffman seemed to bend over backwards to find that VCS are able to claim the £60 add-on in that case, because the Code of Practice says they can.

There was no evidence put forward that £60 had been incurred.  Not even a single DRA letter was in evidence, it was all apparently just presumed to have 'cost money' over and above the £100 PCN (that is already set high enough to more than cover such costs plus a very healthy profit...).

There were a number of grounds upon which this could have been appealed further, but there was no point in doing so, as appeal is risky and expensive, can bite you on the bum if it goes wrong and it will ultimately the false added DRA fees will be determined by the new DLUHC Code of Practice.

HHJ Saffman even went and did his own irrelevant and wrong research after the hearing and before handing down judgment.

We know this because he quoted in some detail from the BPA CoP in his judgment.  Neither side mentioned nor relied on the BPA CoP of course, because VCS are IPC.

It's a dog's dinner of a fudgement IMHO.

Right, so here I go again defending the next claim... 

Should I add this business with Judge Saffman to my defence and what exactly was his irrelevant and wrong research?