Napier Court Claim Form

KeithP

agent17 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you mention it, the Claimant will put two and two together and point out to the Judge that they've already won a case with mirror facts and how dare you try to defend another case expecting a different outcome?

 If I'm not allowed to mention estoppel now, when would it ever be allowed/sensible to be mentioned?

It's not a case of 'not allowed', more that it would be unwise.

It would be unwise because you lost the last case therefore it would be silly to suggest this case be resolved in a similar manner.

However, had you won the last case, then using cause of action estoppel citing that earlier case would be suggesting to the court that this current matter be treated similarly.

agent17

KeithP said:

agent17 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you mention it, the Claimant will put two and two together and point out to the Judge that they've already won a case with mirror facts and how dare you try to defend another case expecting a different outcome?

 If I'm not allowed to mention estoppel now, when would it ever be allowed/sensible to be mentioned?

It's not a case of 'not allowed', more that it would be unwise.

It would be unwise because you lost the last case therefore it would be silly to suggest this case be resolved in a similar manner.

However, had you won the last case, then using cause of action estoppel citing that earlier case would be suggesting to the court that this current matter be treated similarly.

Ok, so if you win, talk about estoppel, if you lose, don't mention cos you'll lose again.

But I still don't understand the point of the SAR request when I quoted both PCN's and, using the template, told them to bring one case for both and not do them individually. They ignored that so I don't see there's much use in saying it in the SAR request template?

agent17

For anyone who can help me understand this multiple claim business:

Am I right in thinking that, despite quoting both PCN's in first SAR request and also telling the judge (who completely ignored me), there is no legal requirement for the claimant to make just one claim, and they are therefore free to do the exact opposite of what is mentioned in SAR request template and pursue multiple individual claims?

agent17

agent17 said:

For anyone who can help me understand this multiple claim business:

Am I right in thinking that, despite quoting both PCN's in first SAR request and also telling the judge (who completely ignored me), there is no legal requirement for the claimant to make just one claim, and they are therefore free to do the exact opposite of what is mentioned in SAR request template and pursue multiple individual claims?

Can anyone clarify this? Do they have to do put multiple PCNs under one claim or not?

Coupon-mad

Yes, in all good faith they should have done; you know that is trite law (you've read the authorities on it).

But because they didn't, you can ignore that and treat this one as a completely separate thing - and it is obvious why not to draw attention to the other case!  

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, in all good faith they should have done; you know that is trite law (you've read the authorities on it).

But because they didn't, you can ignore that and treat this one as a completely separate thing - and it is obvious why not to draw attention to the other case!  

Ok thanks, is this defence ok you think?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. Under the terms of the defendants commercial lease, dated February 2017, the defendant is entitled to park a vehicle in the space directly behind the defendants shop. The lease also allows provision for the purpose of loading/unloading, with no specified time limit. Actually, the defendant is entitled to park two vehicles as the defendant leased two adjacent shops from the landlord, each entitled to one parking space. So, parking or loading/unloading in one or other of the spaces is/was permitted at all times.

4. The defendants lease precedes any agreement the landlord made with the claimant, who appeared and started to bulldoze the separate piece of land, an old pub site completely separate to the shop/residents parking area, around April/May2017, thereby creating a brand new car park.

5. The claimant followed that up by removing, without the defendants consent or consultation, the signs fixed to the back of the defendants two shops that clearly marked them as for the use of shop staff only. It should also be noted that the defendants parking spaces are marked out with yellow lines, clearly defining they are not normal parking spaces.

6. That being said, it became clear very early that the claimant had instructed their operatives to investigate every vehicle in the the shop/residents parking area so, for a simple life, any permits that were issued were kept in the front office in order that, after parking, whoever was needing to park that day would need to unlock the rear of the building, disable alarms, make their way to the front office and then return with the permit to place it on the windscreen.

8. So, if a permit was not on display, it would likely be an issue that the driver was held up by a customer, or some other unavoidable issue in the shop and had not yet had time to return to the vehicle, or was in the process of loading and unloading, which would be done as quickly as reasonably possible, or the permit had simply slipped off the dashboard.

9. The photos provided by the claimant cover the period 15.03:10 to 15.03:33, only 23 seconds, and the note further made by the operative mention that the driver was seen at the vehicle on his phone at 15.09:33 would suggest the defendant was likely loading/unloading, or had maybe just put the permit in place. It is further suggested that, maybe in the interest of the claimant, no further photos were taken after 15.03:33 maybe because they would not have shown an empty parked vehicle but, possibly, a vehicle in the process of loading/unloading. Regardless, it is not considered that a 23 second window would be enough time to retrieve a permit, load/unload, nor in the case of a member of the public, be able to make their way to a ticket machine and return to their vehicle.

10. Also, at no point, either before or after the claimant created the new car park and removed the signs that designated the tenants rightful parking space in the area reserved for shop/tenant parking, did the defendant receive any communication from the landlord or estate agent notifying the defendant of any change to parking rights, therefore the defendant questions whether any claim is procedurally correct.

Le_Kirk

9. The photos provided by the claimant cover the period 15.03:10 to 15.03:33 on dd/mm/yy , only 23 seconds, and the note further made by the operative mention that the driver was seen at the vehicle on his phone at 15.09:33 ...........

I would add the date of the photograph here.

Coupon-mad

And remove this which is a worse admission than relying on the fact that the driver was simply collecting the permit (which is a really strong defence position:

"or the permit had simply slipped off the dashboard."

I've no idea how or why a Judge found against you in the last case.  You OBVIOUSLY have primacy of contract and an unfettered grant of parking there that precedes any poxy 'permit' scheme!

I would add a point that:

Even if the court believes that the Defendant and employee drivers had a 'relevant obligation' to display a permit in their own bays (which is denied) it is clear that the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice section on consideration periods which mandates a 5 minute minimum observation time.  Further, the ticketer has failed to pay any regard to the exclusive rights of the Defendant's staff to load or unload, and indeed park without incurring charges.

agent17

Coupon-mad said:

And remove this which is a worse admission than relying on the fact that the driver was simply collecting the permit (which is a really strong defence position:

"or the permit had simply slipped off the dashboard."

I've no idea how or why a Judge found against you in the last case.  You OBVIOUSLY have primacy of contract and an unfettered grant of parking there that precedes any poxy 'permit' scheme!

I would add a point that:

Even if the court believes that the Defendant and employee drivers had a 'relevant obligation' to display a permit in their own bays (which is denied) it is clear that the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice section on consideration periods which mandates a 5 minute minimum observation time.  Further, the ticketer has failed to pay any regard to the exclusive rights of the Defendant's staff to load or unload, and indeed park without incurring charges.

Thank you. For the previous case the judge had no interest in my comments and mostly chattered with the other side, only paying attention to the lease that seemed to appear to allow the landlord to do what he wanted. Seemed like everything in my defence was completely disregarded. If I knew how to appeal I would have out of principal, regardless of cost, as it didn't feel like I had a fair crack of the whip. But the time already spent following the guidelines laid out in this forum, only to fail dismally, made me think it's just not worth the time and headaches lol...

agent17

Hi guys, I have to submit my witness statement by tomorrow, have there been any changes in last few months that may mean I have to edit some stuff? e.g. do I still attach Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript or are there newer ones that are relevant?