Friend at WS Stage - Due next week. UPDATE: Court Report 6/1/23

Grizebeck

Taiko said:

Did make me laugh when he mentioned Elms, as felt then we were onto a good thing. 

From what I can tell, their advocate has been called to the bar in November 2022, but seems to be unregistered at the moment. Just made it feel that little bit sweeter! 

Elms basically have advocates and solicitors agents for hire for many firms
It is normal

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

Well done. Good report and i would do the latter personally. Others may not agree

I agree.

Let the bullying eejits dig a hole and waste money.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Yesterday morning, my friend received an LBA for those two tickets, so as part of the closing this point was raised, as UKPC hadn't fully advanced their case and were effectively trying to claim again for the same thing. DJ Owen is also including within the judgment an order to prevent this claim from proceeding, as they are one and the same and should have been brought together. 

Please can we see a redacted picture of that Order when it arrives (redact the name of the Defendant, but leave the dates and the claim number visible please).  It seems that DJ Owen might say something useful about res judicata or cause of action estoppel in this Order, which others could use in future, to help fight duplicate claim attempts.

Well done!

I think I've been a lay rep before DJ Owen at Brighton before. The name rings a bell.  I am very pleased that the Brighton Judges are clearly ignoring the trashy fudgement from their local area 'boss' Judge HHJ Simpkiss (who wrongly stated in his shockingly awful appeal finding OPS v Wilshaw, that parking firms don't need landowner authority, LOL!).

I still feel responsible for that car crash of a terrible (badly wrong on several points) appeal decision.  I wasn't representing the D at that appeal hearing but I'd won at the first hearing on every point. I crowdfunded to raise the costs to pay it for Mrs Wilshaw in 2 weeks flat to make it go away for her, but it is great that Brighton judges are clearly unimpressed by it and are happy to consider lack of landowner authority as they always did.

See you and your friend for the Public Consultation!

And when the friend gets that Order, please.

Taiko

Yep, it'll be framed, don't worry. 

Quite enjoyably as well, today has made me realise just how much I've missed helping others, and took me back about 15 years to when I was able to do within the student finance subforum what you guys do here. Definitely not getting the same life joys from the corporate world, so I think today is an additional life win bonus for me! 

Coupon-mad

Come & join us more often, @Taiko!

You are a very welcome addition and another one from Sussex, alongside me and ParkingMad.

Life joys, yes.  I get that!  I'm early retired and really enjoy the massive difference I can make here  by helping individuals, and the far wider impact I'm currently making when the Government listen to me.

Never mind paid work...this is worthwhile.

Grizebeck

Coupon-mad said:

Come & join us more often, @Taiko!

You are a very welcome addition and another one from Sussex, alongside me and ParkingMad.

Life joys, yes.  I get that!  I'm early retired and really enjoy the massive difference I can make here  by helping individuals, and the far wider impact I'm currently making when the Government listen to me.

Never mind paid work...this is worthwhile.

Yea am sure you spend to much time as a lady who lunches 

Taiko

I should've said, added bonus. Had a more cordial chat with the rep afterwards, as when we added in the extortionate Brighton parking fees he said he'd parked for £3.80 for the few hours which, I'm sure Coupon-Mad will know, is near on impossible for Brighton. 

Told us he does it by phone, but makes the call after the initial grace period at the start, and aims to leave in the grace period at the end of parking in the 2 hour limit bays. 

Today's hearing ran late, so here's hoping the wardens were out!

Snakes_Belly

Taiko said:

Did make me laugh when he mentioned Elms, as felt then we were onto a good thing. 

From what I can tell, their advocate has been called to the bar in November 2022, but seems to be unregistered at the moment. Just made it feel that little bit sweeter! 

Well done on your win.

The advocate in my hearing was employed by Elms and another similar set up, He had also been called to the Bar and introduced himself as a barrister. I think these are people who have not yet been able to obtain a pupillage. 

Le_Kirk

Taiko said:

I should've said, added bonus. Had a more cordial chat with the rep afterwards, as when we added in the extortionate Brighton parking fees he said he'd parked for £3.80 for the few hours which, I'm sure Coupon-Mad will know, is near on impossible for Brighton. 

Told us he does it by phone, but makes the call after the initial grace period at the start, and aims to leave in the grace period at the end of parking in the 2 hour limit bays. 

Today's hearing ran late, so here's hoping the wardens were out!

Maybe if he receives/received a PCN you could offer to lay rep for him!

Taiko

Le_Kirk said:

Taiko said:

I should've said, added bonus. Had a more cordial chat with the rep afterwards, as when we added in the extortionate Brighton parking fees he said he'd parked for £3.80 for the few hours which, I'm sure Coupon-Mad will know, is near on impossible for Brighton. 

Told us he does it by phone, but makes the call after the initial grace period at the start, and aims to leave in the grace period at the end of parking in the 2 hour limit bays. 

Today's hearing ran late, so here's hoping the wardens were out!

Maybe if he receives/received a PCN you could offer to lay rep for him!

Council one, so rather not get involved

Taiko

Finally got a copy of the judgment, but sadly was a two liner and didn't mention res judicata, so won't be of any help, I'm afraid! 

Friend didn't really want the hassle of court again on the new ones anyway, so a few weeks ago drafted up something which was emailed to DCB for the new claims. Finally got the response today, which completely ignores being advised they'd lost already, and they plan to go ahead and have a right to payment for the others, which did make me laugh. 

In the interests of trying to prevent the claim, have issued a response to their latest comments, reiterating the position and that they have zero chance of success, and that issuing a claim would ultimately expose their client to additional costs; if the claim proceeds the matter has already been decided on based on signage on site and the decision in the first case, but as these additional tickets relate to a leaving site one, in the initial SAR all photos held were requested, so if these magically appear (they won't), then they failed to comply which is the basis of a counterclaim. 

I've mentioned two cases relevant in this case in the reply also, which should help them make a sensible decision. Those were Henderson v Henderson, and Arkell v Pressdram.