County Court Claim - UKPC / St Marys View

estevenin

The hearing happened this morning, and sadly, the claim was allowed. The reasons exposed were as follows :

- The judge accepted that none of the pictures provided were valid, as some signs are no longer there, and some have been changed. Therefore he relied on the one blurry picture of the sign taken by the parking attendant. He accepted that this is much less than he would like to see, that you can't actually read the rules, but he thinks that it was likely to be visible enough at the time and accepted that there was therefore a contract
- He said that the 5mn consideration period is not biding by law, therefore it was not a requirement for the claimant to give those, if the car had already been parked.
- Then, to decide if the car was parked or loading/unloading, he mentionned that the decision on Jopson v Homeguard is just a decision from a county court judge, not biding him to do the same, that each case must be decided on its merits, that he must only apply the law and consider fact. And he decided that the car was indeed parked.
- As for the costs, he agreed that the 70 pounds on top of the fine was not unlawful (the claimant had a case example where it was deemed lawful), that the court fee and hearing fee could be recovered, but that the extras (12 pounds) fees were inflated. So the total claim was reduced to 12 pounds only. (He asked for his fees, but thanksfully I had read the cost rule and since there was not any unreasonable conduct, it was denied)

As for the hearing itself I feel like I did a good job (obviously within my scope of skills, you always think that yoiu could have done better, or explain things better, I am not used to this exercise at all), to explain all the points the best way I could, but the lawyer that was there was pretty sharp (Guy in his 50s), and I felt like he had a case for everything. I do have the feeling that some of my points in the WS have been ignored (despite mentionning them in the hearing), but in the end I feel, and as he explained during the hearing, none of those cases are binding by law and everything is up to interpretation.

For example about loading / unloading, he might thing that someone that is loading / unloading could leave the engine on, and if it is off, then it is parking. I think that this was the most important point of the defence, and it could have gone either way, or differently with someone else in front

So this specific point I think was the one thing that turned it over. He started the hearing straight away by asking the lawyer to explain that specific park, and how he considered that the car was actually parked. (To which he said that, by seeing the signs and leaving, this is parking)

I am obviously disapointed because I felt very strongly about it, but very happy to had the fight, I reckon that the cost of having a lawyer showing up to defend that case, is of a higher cost than the money got from me.

I also am feeling disapointed since I genuinly, at that time, though that I was stopped on a side street. So I feel like I have been duped, and I didn't manage to get justice (in my view). I didn't know anything about those private parking rules (now I obviously know all about it, at that same period I also had another PC which I tried to defend as well, but at that time, I really felt duped by seeing that fake ticket on the windscreen).

But then again, happy to have tried. That lawyer, at the exit, told me that I did a great defence, with obviously a lot of work on it, that it could have gone either way. That it was not very rewarding to him but obviously he has to do his job. (Might be true, might be not). Then he advised to pay promptly to avoid CCJ.

So if no other alternative (appeal ?), I will then pay. Not sure where and when I can see the whole decision, in order to post it here, could be helpful for future comers.

Again I thank you all for the time and advice, it was great, and I feel like it could have gone either way really and it was very close to winning.

Coupon-mad

he mentionned that the decision on Jopson v Homeguard is just a decision from a county court judge.

He is wrong. It isn't, it was on appeal.  Did you not put him right?

That's wrong in law.  A fundamental error by the Judge.  Did the QDR rep mislead him?

This is also wrong because the 5 min consideration period is mandatory in the BPA CoP which must be complied with, in order for the PPC to obtain DVLA data in the first instance:

He said that the 5mn consideration period is not biding by law, therefore it was not a requirement for the claimant to give those, if the car had already been parked.

Not_A_Hope

That’s a shame @estevenin. I would take some comfort that by defending this the PPC has probably earned little or nothing.

You might have lost this battle but stick around and have you say on the upcoming consultation on the new COP. Getting that over the line would be sweet revenge on this out of control industry

B789

Can you remember if the judge actually said that he is not bound by Jopson because it was County Court decision? If so, you have the right to appeal that awful decision.

Coupon-mad

Jopson is 'persuasive' but not binding.

If your Judge declared it to be 'just a decision by a county court Judge' then he misdirected himself and should have considered HHJ Harris' findings and not made up his own.

This is made worse by the fact that he ACCEPTED the authority of another appeal made at the same level as Jopson, the one about the added £70 (either OPS v Wilshaw or VCS v Percy).

The Judge allowed himself to be persuaded by one appeal but not by the other, Jopson, which was absolutely on point.

Le_Kirk

I am confused by your court report in terms of costs, what did the judge say you had to pay?

estevenin

Coupon-mad said:

he mentionned that the decision on Jopson v Homeguard is just a decision from a county court judge.

He is wrong. It isn't, it is by HHJ Harris on appeal.  Did you not put him right?

That's wrong in law.  A fundamental error by the Judge.  Did the QDR rep mislead him?

This is also wrong because the 5 min consideration period is mandatory in the BPA CoP which must be complied with, in order for the PPC to obtain DVLA data in the first instance:

He said that the 5mn consideration period is not biding by law, therefore it was not a requirement for the claimant to give those, if the car had already been parked.

I did not really put him right, as I didn't know if he was actually right or wrong, if he had to follow that decision or it was just a precedent that applied to one case. I have to admit that this took me  by surprise and it's not a question I expected to receive.

The QDR did not mislead him at all on this point, he just mentionned, like in his WS, that he maintained that as long as the decision to leave the car here despite the rules on the signs, the car was parked.

For the 5mn, I did argue that it is mentionned in the BPA, also about the 70 pounds extra, in the BPA, the claimant must make every effort to recover the proper service address, before starting legal proceedings. Which they had not since the WS itself was still sent at my old address.

I did not mentionned that this had to be complied with in order to get DVLA infos, however the claimant specifically said he admits that 5mn of grace period were due.

Not_A_Hope said:

That’s a shame @estevenin. I would take some comfort that by defending this the PPC has probably earned little or nothing.

Yes I know, that's the reason I appeal everything when I feel tricked, I don't mind the inflated charge if I loose, I'd rather we both loose than just me, that would change PC and council's behaviour if everyone was doing it.

B789 said:

Can you remember if the judge actually said that he is not bound by Jopson because it was County Court decision? If so, you have the right to appeal that awful decision.

He mentionned it, word for word, when I was doing my speech and he questionned me about it. He did not repeat it in the final decision when no-one was allowed to speak, he just said "I am satisfied that the car was parked". But he did say that to me exactly. I saw it him wanting me to convince him, that what happened was indeed loading / unloading.

Coupon-mad said:

The Judge allowed himself to be persuaded by one appeal but not by the other, Jopson, which was absolutely on point.

I agree and it's probably my mistake for not beeing convincing enough in court, I did the best I could and I knew everything very well, but he probably expected to hear something different.

Also, I will say that I was surprised about the final decision, with all the comments and the argumentations, I really though that it would go my way, for every single point. I even managed to discard all the signs pictures from the Claimant's WS, the judge even asked the question "So if I can't read the sign, how do I know what it actually says ?" The claimant responded. Well we wrote the rules on the WS, and basically that's what the sign says. I though this response was a joke and that the claim would be dismissed on signs alone ! So the decision did take me by surprise, based on the feelings that I had all along the court, except for that time where he questionned me about Jopson, where I felt like I had lost that point here.

With all that said, this was a very unique situation because this piece of land, is the parking of the county court! (Even though it was not at the time, the court moved there around 6 months ago). So the judge sees it everyday, knows about it, knows about the signs, knows that a lot of cars are stopping there for errands, and this may have played uncousciously in his decision.

Le_Kirk said:

I am confused by your court report in terms of costs, what did the judge say you had to pay?

I am not sure actually, I wrote it on my laptop and saved it somewhere but can't seem to find it again. However the claim was 294 pounds I think, and I think it got reduced somewhere around 275 around there. He accepted that the fine should not be inflated at all (quoted Beavis case and the other one), but he accepted that the 70 pounds extra is acceptable for proceedings. So this is the initial charge (100 pounds), then the proceedings (70 pounds) then the claim fees (35 pounds), and hearings fees (27) and fixed legal costs (50 pounds fees). So I think they removed 12 pounds litigation fees. As soon as the Claimant was responding to my defence, I was no longer allowed to talk at all.

Is there any repository online where I can get the full court decision in writing, or can I ask the court ?

Coupon-mad

There is no decision in writing unless you pay for it to be transcribed.

And you'd only do that if you decide to appeal.  Expensive (hundreds including the transcript) and can be costs-risky.

And if this car park is the court car park, do we actually expect a Circuit Judge for that area to side with you?  Sadly I think the Circuit Judge would quash YOU not the Claimant.

Trouble is, Jopson is 'persuasive' but not 'binding'.

So it's true that he wasn't 'bound' by it but he was certainly wrong if he actually said 'that's just a County Court Judge'.

His decision about the signage evidence also seems extremely questionable if the ONLY photo was unreadable.  How could he possibly construe the contractual terms?

Terrible judgment.

Get your revenge with the Public Consultation in August (please come back and take part to change the law).

patient_dream

What an incompetent Judge.   That is the problem with the County Courts,  there is no continuity and they rely upon people like ex solicitors to apply a fair judgement

Your judge said
"The judge accepted that none of the pictures provided were valid, as some signs are no longer there, and some have been changed. Therefore he relied on the one blurry picture of the sign taken by the parking attendant. He accepted that this is much less than he would like to see, that you can't actually read the rules,"

After that verbal, he then became a stupid judge and it beggars belief that he is let loose on the public

Only last week another judge in another court ruled that UKPC claims are ridiculous and the claim is to extort money

You should now be talking your MP about this stupid decision and him/her take this up with the MoJ

Don't let this go to your head QDR, you got lucky THIS TIME

estevenin

Coupon-mad said:

And if this car park is the court car park, do we actually expect a Circuit Judge for that area to side with you?  Sadly I think the Circuit Judge would quash YOU not the Claimant.

Indeed, that's really bad luck, when I appointed that court they were in a complete different location, and they just moved there a few months before the hearing!

Got it for the appeal, thank you.

patient_dream said:

Your judge said
"The judge accepted that none of the pictures provided were valid, as some signs are no longer there, and some have been changed. Therefore he relied on the one blurry picture of the sign taken by the parking attendant. He accepted that this is much less than he would like to see, that you can't actually read the rules,"

After that verbal, he then became a stupid judge and it beggars belief that he is let loose on the public

That is word for word what he said. Then the claimant when to say we attached a clear printed copy of what the sign actually says. He accepted that... In the decision, word for word he said "I accept that we can't read the sign on the picture, but I am satisfied that this would have been visible enough at the location".

Anyway, I will stick around, I'm very happy I took the fight and I thank you all again for all your answers and advice. It is unlikely that I ever get caught again now that I know about private parking, but if it ever happens, this would have been a very fruitful experience that I'll use next time.

I hope it helps others, for people coming for help to write their own Defence and Witness Statement, I will go ahead and clear my Dropbox so here are the documents :

- UKCP Witness Statement : https://rapidshare.io/Fxy/UKCP_Witness_Statement_(Blank).pdf
- My Witness Statement : https://rapidshare.io/Fxz/Witness_Statement_and_Exhibits_FINAL.pdf

If those are no longer there when you come, please send me a DM and I will send it to you.

Cheers!