CASE WON Student Accommodation with free parking

Mouse007

.....

Mouse007 said:

Rats

show previous quotes

The Court writes to inform you, that your hearing due to take place on Tuesday 24th January has been vacated due to Judge unavailability.

Mrs Mouse has volunteered to stand in for them

We're GO GO GO live hearing at 11.30am in Court today

paulstevens64

Looking forward to the court reporrt. Good luck Mr Mouse

Mouse007

We were very early and the Court was empty, I asked the usher to let the Judge have the Skeleton (just in case). You’re quiet today, yes previous case finished early. Turned to son, that’s good news the Judge will be reading everything (30 minutes to go). Boy had he read it all and confirmed so as we went in, including our skeleton.

No problem getting in as Lay Rep, and it was in proper Court, I mean Judge up on a bench, usher to the side taking notes, this was quite formal, not a cosy chat around a table.

Bad Judge, I mean shockingly bad. Did not like copied from internet, most of it irrelevant. Park Eye v Beavis established parking charges legal full stop, would not accept any correction. PPC did not need land owner authority, excuse me? Sign did create a contract, splutter what? How?

He was clearly trying to contain his anger about this storm in a tea cup generating an unbelievable amount of paperwork, “a ridiculous amount” I replied.

However as best as I can recall

Judge, “I will start as usual with the Claimant and I have to say from the outset Ms xzkysxz I think you are going to have an uphill struggle”. The mice are immediately feeling comfortable, very comfortable. “You are going to have to convince me” he continued.

Claimant’s rep started off by trying to get our Witness Statement struck out because it was 2 weeks late. Nope Judge was not having that, swiftly turning to the Order which gave us 2 weeks beyond their filing deadline. He then turned straight to the time and date when this had been emailed to the Court, on time, but this did not show cc to Claimant. I swiftly produced copies of the emails clearly showing cc to Claimant (to 3 email addresses) and the auto response from one of them. I had anticipate this move, Son knew I had those with me and was beaming. He also knew I had included one wrong email address to generate the auto reply from BW Legal to prove the cc to Claimant had been received by their server. His mother had burst out laughing when I told him what I had and why as we had left home earlier.

Now the Judge moved onto a full blown cross examination of the Claimant’s rep. To every reply she gave the Judge was straight back at her. But Mr Mouse says this, where does it say he needed a permit? No one told him, how would he know? as soon as he became aware of the requirement he tried to fix the issue. And then this email says the letting agent have cancelled the charges and paid the cancellation fee! What else could he have done?

She claimed the Defendant did not raise any question until December, without blinking Judges “Oh yes he did, his email here in September”. He reads out part of it, including the bits about the silverfish and internet problems.

She was grilled for a straight half hour, barely a word from us. Usher was smiling, at times he and my son had to stop themselves from laughing. Every now and then the Judge would pass a comment or two about irrelevant parts of the Defence, but always returned to Mr Mouse thought he had the right to park. No where does it say he had to display a permit.

The Judge then ended with “I am going to be swift, I’m striking out this claim, it should never have been brought”.

Claimant’s rep immediately says they want to appeal “Why? For what reason?” barks the Judge. Nervously she replies “I am instructed to”. “How can the Claimant instruct you to appeal before they knew the outcome of the case?” was his prompt retort “Do you want to appeal?”. At this point the Court usher and my son both nearly lost it. She was toast. “Er no we don’t want to appeal” “right no appeal”.

During post decision comments the Judge referred to the eye watering rent charge looking straight at me, “tell me about it” I said. He had read everything, I mean to have spotted that.

While the outcome was a win, it was not quite primacy of contract that won it. I was disturbed by how dismissive the Judge was about lack of landowner authority, lack of legitimate interest, Lord Denning’s red hand rule and the signs. It was almost as if the sign could say anything and that would be ok.

What won it was Mr Mouse fairly believed he had the right to park and as soon as he found out that there were terms and conditions tried to comply with them. His emails to the letting agency won it together with the email from the letting agency saying the charges had been cancelled and the PPC paid. “That is a matter between the letting agent and the Claimant, not the Defendant” he concluded.

Heads up, AVOID Swindon.

Edit to add: The Judge did however say the add on £70 cost would not have been allowed which was good to hear.

Galloglass

Nice example of a judge reaching into his her bag of legal devices to come up with a solution. Looks like estoppel where the honest belief of the D swayed the result.

D wins. C gets to reinforce their requirement for permit to comply with the contract on the signs. 

Coupon-mad

Very well done to win against a Judge like that!  Hats off to you.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

"Bad Judge, I mean shockingly bad. Did not like copied from internet, most of it irrelevant. Park Eye v Beavis established parking charges legal full stop, would not accept any correction. PPC did not need land owner authority, excuse me? Sign did create a contract, splutter what? How?"

Judges who think like that ("no landowner authority is needed and signage is enough") are wrongly setting store by the generic legal argument often heard from reps at hearings, that:

"I could contract to sell you Buckingham Palace and any lack of ownership or interest in that property is by the by, because the offer creates legal relations".

Strictly true.  e.g. I could contract to offer to sell you a Rolex even though I don't have one.  A contract would still exist...

It's been heard and dismantled before. Search this forum for something like: Buckingham Palace contract parking.

BUT THAT GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPAL DOES NOT APPLY IN PARKING CASES because of the strict KADOE rules, which see the DVLA require landowner authority to exist before they hand out our data like sweeties.

This mandatory requirement is echoed in both CoPs AND in the new incoming statutory CoP.  Landowner authority IS required first, otherwise any AOS member could put up signs anywhere, or leave them up after being sacked and still issue PCNs that an idiot Judge would blindly uphold!

This is one of the many ways where HHJ Simpkiss went badly wrong in OPS v Wilshaw (appeal fudgement) because OPS' barrister used the Buckingham Palace argument and Ms W's embarrassingly floundering (woefully under-prepared) barrister had no idea how to counter anything.

It was your thorough preparation & evidence (including those emails) which won the day for you.

Uncomfortable when you get an appalling Judge isn't it? Makes you squirm.

Well saved.

Umkomaas

Mousetastic result @Mouse007, well done to you and Junior Mouse 🐭 🐭 . 

Now get your tail back on the forum as we are hitting a critical point in getting some sense knocked into the private parking sector. 

Snakes_Belly

Well done Mouse and good report 

inspectorperez

Well done Mouse family - a cause for celebration and a good learning thread for any future victims of these unscrupulous companies.

I've just picked up on this thread today and have read through the whole saga from start to finish. Amazed and full of admiration at your tenacity and professional approach in supporting your student son which has ultimately proved successful.

Ed2022

This would make great TV viewing, an episode of Judge John Deed.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Congratulations to you and Mouse junior.  A very well deserved win  

Enjoy your celebration this evening