We won today

BelladonnaTook

Thank you, @Not_A_Hope

I'm really bewildered by what went on at the court but I don't know whether I am allowed to say anything about it even though I would need to in order to ask for advice. 

BelladonnaTook

Sorry @Coupon-mad,Ididnt see your response as I hadn't refreshed the page.
  

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas said:

far better served by putting it through a Common Sense, Truth and Integrity filter

I think Jeremy Kyle has a spare that he's no longer using. 

Imo, he never had one - the show started off by using actors in place of real guests for a while before being called out.

BelladonnaTook

Just a ̶c̶o̶u̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶  few quickies whilst they are still fresh in my mind:

1. How long do the PPCs send their reps along to court for? An hour? Two hours? If the case is allocated one hour, do they only pay the reps for one hour or do they  pay them travelling/waiting time etc too?

2. As a ball-park figure (or a car-park figure perhaps 🙄 ), what is their average hourly rate? I can guess what a solicitor might charge but what about paralegals etc? £200 per hour? £400 ph? Or am i way off the mark there?

(I'm aware the Def. doesn't pay a winning claimant non-fixed costs, unless in the highly unlikely event of Defs in PP cases behaving unreasonably - I 'd just like to know average rep fees, in order to explain something to someone).

Thank y'all.

Umkomaas

It's believed to be ~£120 per hearing. But we're not on the inside track of any PPC or their legal hacks. 

BelladonnaTook

Thank you @Umkomaas

BelladonnaTook

Can anyone please tell me if I'm missing something re the claimant's landowner 'authority' agreement?

Particulars of Claim in this case clearly state that the location (within mixed-usage 22 acre business site containing multiple car parks (including a 'free for up to 3 hours' retail parking area) of the alleged contravention was ".. Car Parks 1, 2, 3 and 4".
[see here at https://www.dropbox.com/s/raqvlbezj7mf17z/poc.png?dl=0 ]

However, the 'authority' agreement submitted with claimant's WS clearly states on first page  " “The Car Park” means the car parks known as CAR PARKS 1, 2, 3" . 
It does not mention car park 4.
 [see here at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tpbrlq38f0779w/vcs%20contract%20page%201.png?dl=0 ]

The second page clearly states ".Car Park 1, 2 & 3.." 
It does not mention car parks 4, 5, 6 or any other - and the "map of protected areas" (to the south of The Range) included on the second page, also only shows 1, 2 and 3. All the other car parks/parking areas to the north side of the whole site, are omitted from the  "map of protected areas" .
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7e0yxw10m16oep/vcs%20contract%20page%202.png?dl=0]

I have taken this "map of protected areas" covered by the alleged 'authority' agreement and produced a comparison with a bird's eye view of the site so that it is clear where the 'authority' location was/is and where the actual parking location was [see here at https://www.dropbox.com/s/mrwos8zb2nn1es9/comparison.png?dl=0 ]

To a non-lawyer like me, it seems unambiguous that there is no evidence of authority over Defendant's actual parking location (to the north side, nowhere near the "protected areas" of Car Parks 1, 2 or 3.)

However,  at CH, judge said he didn't have enough time for this case as too much info but claimant's rep did not want adjournment so judge said to go outside and if not settled out of court in 20 mins, case would be adjourned.

Claimant's rep seemed very confident that claimant has authority to issue parking charges even though the copy of their 'authority' agreement doesn't include Defendant's actual parking location (already established numerous times between Defendant receiving PCN and receiving claimant's WS ten months later).

Before the claimant's rep even said anything, the judge asked the rep to confirm that he had a lot of stuff*  to back up the claimant having authority over actual parking location and rep agreed. 
?
Outside, the rep boasted that he had "loads of caselaw" as backup, even though the claimant's own evidence (the 'authority' agreement) appeared to indicate otherwise.

The command to go outside and settle (or it could cost Defendant "over £400"?), really threw us and unnerved the Defendant who agreed to settle (as well as being unnerved by the exchange about caselaw backup etc).
My fault I suppose for not also spending hours trying to find out about small-claims settlements on top of everything else.
And I'm still really none the wiser.
.
Bear in mind the PCN figure was £100 to which VCs have added the £60 nonsense plus court fee of £35 and Legal Rep cost of £50 (the "over £400" figure the judge mentioned incudes the threatened by VCS legal costs - surely not allowed in Small Claims court and Defendant has NOT behaved unreasonably).

However, the Defendant's fed-up-to-the-back-teeth willingness to settle after what went on in there was shot down too.
After agreeing to Rep's suggested figure, VCS refused. Rep then suggested another figure, Defendant agreed and VCS again, refused! They wanted £185 (the original £100 plus their fixed costs) (interesting that they dropped the £60....)

Anyway, Defendant was furious with VCS by this time, so refused to their demand after I pointed out that is the amount he would have to pay if he lost in court (unless they got the £60 too if an unaware judge presides over the adjourned hearing).

However, he really does NOT want to go back to court and is willing to accept that he has been scammed by off-the-highwaymen and then put it behind him ..if the chance that the claimant will get away with this, is high.
He also said though, that if I can find a way that isn't stressful or expensive (he's very young and can't afford all this),he will consider fighting on for the sake of the greater good...but only if there is no more endless drains on time and well-being..

Not sure where to go from here as 'settlement' got nowhere either and not sure what options are now.
As the claimant appears to have been given an opportunity to go and and find more evidence to back up their 'authority' then I don't see what can be done about that.

I can't even find out how to word a settlement offer - or what a reasonable figure would be - or even how its supposed to be done. Plus, I got the impression at the CH that if we don't sort it out, the Defendant will be the one to suffer either way.

Has anyone come across this situation before? 

Suggestions are most welcome!

*obv. he didn't use the word 'stuff'.

NB
In addition to the location anomalies between the P of C and the 'authority' agreement (claimant's own evidence), to me, the 'authority' may not be valid anyway due to one or more of following:

a) the signatories are undated

b) the signatories do not appear to satisfy Sec 43 of Companies Act 2006 (and therefore not Sec 44 either as not validly executed)

c) the agreement is dated December 2018 but the landowner company (registered offshore) apparently ceased trading in 2017

d) there is no evidence of landowner company authorising managing Agent to act on landowner's behalf

e) as the landowner company is/was offshore, there needs I think, to be evidence of Power of Attorney rights for Managing Agent

f)  the agreement is dated December 2018 but the named (which I have redacted for now) Managing Agent who signed it (without dating his signature) ,actually left the managing company several years earlier

g) there is no evidence (no provided with claim or WS) that the landowner company passed on authority to the new company which appears to have taken over activities at the biz site - and the new company did not start trading until March 2019.

h) the landowner company stills owns the land but cannot dispose of it without conditions including the restriction charge put on it by bank

Coupon-mad

"However, he really does NOT want to go back to court and is willing to accept that he has been scammed by off-the-highwaymen and then put it behind him ..if the chance that the claimant will get away with this, is high.

I say it's not very high at all!

You both needed the confidence to read between the lines of the massive hint the Judge gave both sides, that landowner authority IS a huge issue.

You could not have had a clearer signal from the Judge and the rep must have thought it hilarious that you didn't realise and actually started making offers:

...the claimant's rep even said anything, the judge asked the rep to confirm that he had a lot of stuff*  to back up the claimant having authority over actual parking location.

I would have grinned from ear to ear and taken from this, that the Judge was signalling they will need a lot more than the evidence seen. Maybe that Judge has seen these cases before and knows some areas are not enforced. His hint at VCS was massive!

No amount of 'Case law' can rescue this for VCS, given what you've spotted about the maps not including the area where the car was parked! 

He also said though, that if I can find a way that isn't stressful or expensive (he's very young and can't afford all this),he will consider fighting on for the sake of the greater good...but only if there is no more endless drains on time and well-being.

Good! Crack on with added confidence.

This will cost nothing. 

Reads to me that he will win at the next hearing and you just need NOT to be impressed or spooked by the rhetoric of a legal rep who was talking out of his bum.

Why not push them to discontinue?

Just email VCS - THE DEFENDANT, NOT YOU - and remind them that  the Judge warned their rep that they didn't have enough evidence of landowner authority, and encourage them to discontinue because there are no offers on the table now that the rep isn't around to mislead the young Defendant and the Defendant has renewed resolve. 

A 'drop hands offer' is all the Defendant will now make.  This has value to VCS because two lots of legal rep fees in a case with zero evidence of landowner authority for the place actually parked, is a waste of everyone's time, plus (having had time to review the evidence in the light of the Judge's comments) the Defendant is now encouraged by the first hearing.

He will be seeking his full costs for attending two hearings, due to VCS' wholly unreasonable conduct of ticketing cars well outside of the enforcement area and obtaining DVLA data without any 'reasonable cause'.

BelladonnaTook

Your response is very much appreciated @Coupon-mad

I wish we had your confidence!

From all the threads I have read on this forum, I was expecting some shenanigans from the other side - the mock flattery (e.g. "..your docs are so detailed you must be a lawyer..." "the judge is going to rip into me if he's read your file" (but smirking confidently when in there) and the pretence (saying they hadn't received Def's SWS then a few minutes later, letting slip something that was in it.  And saying how much it had cost him to park then five minutes later saying what happened on his train journey to the CH). Sigh.

However, putting aside that nonsense,what worried us was/is (apart from both Defendant and I sensing that the court was actually warning Defendant not to continue, rather than the claimant):

• if the landowner contract being invalid is so irrefutable - why on earth would the court not decide there and then on that basis? why clog up the courts by an adjournment ?

• why would the court basically put the Defendant at a disadvantage whilst assisting the claimant by giving them the chance to:  
  

 a] benefit from an undeserved settlement from unwary Def. or
 b] produce more 'evidence' before the next CH ? is that allowed? or
 c] discontinue when (if the landowner authority is undoubtedly invalid) the case had/has no merit?

Also, if the alleged landowner 'authority' really is invalid and the claimant definitely has no prospect of 'winning', then why did VCS not discontinue before the first CH?  I am aware (from this forum) how litigious they are but have seen a few examples of them 'surrendering' when they accept that they are going to lose.

It just makes us think there must be something very wrong with Def's case and we are blind to it.

It isn't just the landowner contract thing; before VCS produced that 'contract', Def's case was based on inadequate signage and submitted plenty of photos to back that up (plus no advertisement consent for even the 3 hour free parking signs and no planning permission for the relevant ANPR that actually recorded entry/exit times - to the whole biz site, not to car park).

NB
I can only think that it was due to sheer exhaustion because I'm normally pedantic (overthink too, I know) and like to dot every i and cross every T (unlike the cavalier sloppiness of the opposition) but the night before the CH, I found another another issue in Claimant's WS that also makes their arguments absurd. I kicked myself then decided to just point it out at CH if I got the chance. However, as it has been adjourned, is Def. allowed to still challenge that issue in writing? Not found definitive answer to this yet.

Coupon-mad

Yes the Defendant can raise anything at the hearing, about the other side's 'evidence'.  What you can't do is cross examine or ask questions of the rep, because he isn't a witness. You address the Judge and point out the omissions.

As you already submitted a SWS don't send another one. Judges don't like email tennis or loads of statements.

Why not include what you spotted in the D's email to VCS, encouraging them to discontinue and making a 'drop hands/no costs' offer?

It just makes us think there must be something very wrong with Def's case and we are blind to it.

Nope. No reason to think that.

The Judge was clearly tired and knew it would take longer to go through all the evidence than the time he had. So he treated it as a preliminary hearing only, like a 'mini mediation' attempt to try to save the court time.

Standard practice is to encourage the parties to have a chat outside to settle. You could have said to VCS rep: 'drop hands offer - you have no evidence and the Judge just dropped you a massive hint that the car wasn't in the enforced area'.

That is what he should try by email now!

I am sending you a dose of my confidence. This is one of the reasons why I'm on the Govt Steering Group because I know the industry inside out, genuinely support the consumer side with no agenda and don't take crap from anyone!

And I was bolshy enough to put myself forward and suggest the people that I think they'd possibly lined up, were not OK. I've had arguments in front of Govt to get my points heard. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!

Tell the Defendant I've sent him some confidence and to send that email!  Show us first, we'll all help to beef it up.