Updated 08/03 - I won my case!

patient_dream

Well done, you spanked DCBL and Highview

Fruitcake

Well done! That's brilliant news. Once you have come down from the ceiling would you give us a more detailed court report and the reasons for the judge's findings?
Did you get costs awarded to you?

DE_612183

woop woop!!!!! 

Taiko

Great news! Looking forward to hearing the details! 

B789

RoseNarene said:

He also said that because I don’t have any evidence of named drivers on my insurance policy, that proves that no one else drove my car. 

DE_612183 said:

If there is no passenger that doesn't mean you were driving - how have they got your insurance details?
Coud someone else can be insured for the same car on a different policy?

I think the rep was trying to say that the defendant hadn't evidenced their insurance policy to show other named drivers. Typical of a loser trying to twist the facts. The defendant wasn't obliged to show their insurance details.

Thankfully, the judge didn't accept the fact that if only one occupant is visible it must be the defendant. Also, even if the insurance didn't show any other named drivers, that doesn't mean that another driver doesn't have insurance that covers them on another vehicle, not owned by them.

Interesting that they tried to use ANPR pictures to evidence something other than a VRN. I don't think that is even allowed, is it?

Well done though to @RoseNarene for persevering through with this claim and getting another scamming PPC a public spanking.

RoseNarene

I've finally had a chance to sit down!

So basically my witness statement and evidence were all way too long, so the judge asked if we would be happy to focus on just the idea of whether or not I was the driver, and then follow up with the costs issue. If I was then found to be liable for the charge, then we could have another hearing to look at the other evidence I had brought.

The solicitor was then able to cross examine me. He tried to make out that because I mentioned I was a single mother, that I must have been the driver. It was clear how he was trying to twist my words so I didn't let him and was careful how I answered. He asked me why I didn't have evidence of my ex partner as a named driver on my insurance policy, and I said that he drove the car on my insurance as I was fully comp. I explained to the judge when he questioned me that my ex usually drove the car because he didn't have one, and he rather enjoyed ferrying us about! 

Then, in closing statements, the solicitor brought up the images from the PCN, saying that they showed very clearly that there was no one in the passenger seat (as I had said that I would usually be the one to drive the car if by myself; my ex didn't really use my car on his own). But the images were really blurry and unclear, which I pointed out. The judge wasn't happy that the solicitor tried to bring this up in closing statements when he hadn't mentioned it at all before.

Then we had to go out for the judge to think about it, and when we came back in, he basically said that the solicitor had not satisfied him that I was the driver, as even if the images showed no passenger, it wasn't clear enough to see me. The solicitor asked for an appeal on the basis that he felt the judge made the wrong call, and the judge said no.

With regards to the added costs on the PCN, obviously that didn't matter as the judge decided that I wasn't liable. However, I think it's worth pointing out that he decided that the signage was insufficient when informing the driver of what contractual additional costs could be charged. Clearly the case before mine had the same issue, as the solicitor said he didn't wish to argue with the judge over that again, as he knew how the judge felt about it. 

When it came to MY costs, I chickened out, I have to admit. I just wanted to get out of there. The solicitor was very unpleasant, and though the judge was very kind, I thought, I just didn't have to confidence to ask for costs.

I anticipate that I will have to go back to court when the second PCN case (the one which was under my married name) comes out of the ether. I don't think I can win it on the same basis, because as I recall when I did the SARS, the image quite clearly showed me as the driver with no passenger in the front. But with that PCN, I'm registered as overstaying by almost 2 hours, and I know for a fact that I would never do that, as I have always been aware of the 2.5 hour time limit. I think it must be an ANPR double dip error, so I plan to argue that one on that basis. Expect me to return and ask for advice on that one, too!

As always, I am very grateful for all the advice given here. I wouldn't have known anything about the whole 'proving I was the driver' thing if I hadn't been for you. You do awesome work and I will forever be grateful!

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win.  Is your second one for the same car park, same PPC? If so you should argue that the claimant should have advanced the two claims together.

RoseNarene

Yes, it's the same car park and the same PPC. They didn't put them together because one of them was issued in my old married name. I think that they did a soft trace to find me when they sent the claim forms, as all the other letters went to the wrong addresses, but somehow they didn't put 2 and 2 together and realise that they were dealing with a single person! 

Boat_to_Bolivia

Congratulations on your win. Fabulous news.

Taiko

Excellent report, and congratulations again on the win. It'll help give you confidence in the 2nd, and I'm sure we'll all be on hand to help through that. 

At the request risk of getting a slap from Coupon-Mad, keep in mind the future consultation being led by the government on private parking charges, which is drawing closer. The more people that supply evidence of how things have been handled the better.