Appealing a PCN for free Waitrose car park

skyblues87

One quick question, looking at the section in the template relating to landowner contract the claimant has not supplied any landowner contract, all they have supplied is a witness statement from LPS (the PPC) saying they have the authority of the landowner.

Rather than remove that section completely is it better to adapt it to something like:

The Claimant has not supplied a ‘landowner contract’. Therefore there is nothing to say what the landowner's approach (whoever they may be) is to penalising genuine patrons. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you can adapt it to whatever suits, but don't remove it!

skyblues87

Just a quick update ahead of the hearing next Thursday. Been informed that Gladstones Solicitors have given notice that they won't be attending the hearing. 

Assume this is a positive as if there's any queries with their claim they won't be able to answer questions. 

Fruitcake

No, it's normal practice. They will hire a local solicitor to send a rep from the office near to the court you have chosen. This is so they don't have to answer embarrassing questions about the case.

skyblues87

So the hearing was earlier today and the judge was very dismissive and I've now got a nice big charge to pay. 

In short the judge was scathing about using defences from the internet 'even thought the cases referenced are relevant' and 'they don't have to show the vehicle parked, just that it has passed the ANPR camera' and finally 'they don't have to prove who was driving the vehicle, merely who owned the vehicle'. 

Not the result I was hoping for but there you go. 

Le_Kirk

skyblues87 said:

So the hearing was earlier today and the judge was very dismissive and I've now got a nice big charge to pay. 

In short the judge was scathing about using defences from the internet 'even thought the cases referenced are relevant' and 'they don't have to show the vehicle parked, just that it has passed the ANPR camera' and finally 'they don't have to prove who was driving the vehicle, merely who owned the vehicle'. 

Not the result I was hoping for but there you go. 

Weird, sorry you lost but how does anybody know who owns a vehicle, there is no register of owners for vehicles, even the DVLA state on the V5C that possession of the V5 does not prove ownership!

Coupon-mad

'they don't have to show the vehicle parked, just that it has passed the ANPR camera' and finally 'they don't have to prove who was driving the vehicle, merely who owned the vehicle'. 

The first part is true and the second part almost true.  Judge is correct there.  Nothing I'd argue with.

Neither of those are arguments we use (as such) so I'm not sure why they came up at the hearing?

Which Judge & court - it is possible you were on a hiding to nothing with a bad Judge from the get-go.  Quite rare, but some are (surprisingly) still Team PPC.  Did you get that impression?

Normally it comes down to a fair judgement about the prominence of signage, as to whether you win or not.  Or lack of grace period or POFA issues, if applicable.

What was your main argument and how was that defeated? So sorry you lost.

What did the other side's rep say?

We assume the Judge at least got it that they can't add a false DRA fee of £70 on top of a PCN that already covers the minimal costs of £2.50 to the DVLA and a few automated letters.  Surely he got your points about that false add-on?

skyblues87

Coupon-mad said:

'they don't have to show the vehicle parked, just that it has passed the ANPR camera' and finally 'they don't have to prove who was driving the vehicle, merely who owned the vehicle'. 

The first part is true and the second part almost true.  Judge is correct there.  Nothing I'd argue with.

Neither of those are arguments we use (as such) so I'm not sure why they came up at the hearing?

Which Judge & court - it is possible you were on a hiding to nothing with a bad Judge from the get-go.  Quite rare, but some are (surprisingly) still Team PPC.  Did you get that impression?

Normally it comes down to a fair judgement about the prominence of signage, as to whether you win or not.  Or lack of grace period or POFA issues, if applicable.

What was your main argument and how was that defeated? So sorry you lost.

What did the other side's rep say?

We assume the Judge at least got it that they can't add a false DRA fee of £70 on top of a PCN that already covers the minimal costs of £2.50 to the DVLA and a few automated letters.  Surely he got your points about that false add-on?

it came up as the entrance with the ANPR is a shared entrance, there are 3 'zones' in the car park, the shopping centre which is free, the community centre which is free and a number of random spaces which aren't free. if they only show you going past the camera how does it show you're parked in a space that requires a fee and not a free space? 

Not sure of the judges name, there was a last minute change, its was in Coventry court. He did seem a bit annoyed from the start, complaining about how thorough my defence was and how many points it covered. 

The signage was discussed, as I put in my defence that the signage in the other sides evidence appears new but the judge was of the opinion car parks never have new signage and obviously I can't go back in time and get photos from 3 years ago to prove that.

My main argument was the three 'zones' in the car park and no delineation between them. It just doesn't make sense to me that you can install an ANPR camera on a shared entrance and issue tickets to anyone that passes it no matter if they were parking in a free space or not.

I spoke to the manager of the supermarket who said they get a huge number of complaints about this and the tickets are then cancelled at their request but obviously that couldn't happen in this instance as I knew nothing about it until the CCJ appeared on my credit file. The manager of the community centre said similar. 

Not had the paperwork through yet but I've got to pay the full fine and their costs. The only thing he threw out was interest as they were trying to claim 8% which is way over base rate for the period. 

So between this and getting the CCJ removed, where the judge refused to award costs, I'm over £400 down for a parking ticket I didn't know I had for parking at a supermarket with free parking. Frustrating to say the least.

On the bright side at least there will be no record of this on my credit file going forward. Although Barclaycard have already dropped my limit for near £15K to £100 and are refusing to put it back up!

Coupon-mad

So sorry this went so badly; that's very rare but can occasionally happen. It sounds like a Deputy DJ who is unfamiliar with what we and MPs consider to be parking scams/dodgy signs and extortionate add-ons.

The immediate 'red flag' always is if they are narky with you, the defendant, at the start for no good reason, as you said happened (this normally signals a Judge who doesn't realise what scammers PPCs generally are considered to be by right-thinking people and MPs):

its was in Coventry court. He did seem a bit annoyed from the start, complaining about how thorough my defence was and how many points it covered. 

The signage was discussed, as I put in my defence that the signage in the other sides evidence appears new but the judge was of the opinion car parks never have new signage.

That opinion is blatantly wrong!  Car park signs are changed fairly regularly.  GoogleStreetview shows images from years ago, in most cases.

If you were given a chance to add a witness statement and bundle(?) as well as the defence, then the lack of signage in 2019 could probably have been proven.  I'm guessing you only had a defence filed, no witness statement nor photo evidence, yet Gladstones had put in a full WS and photo bundle?

This is what can conspire against people with a CCJ, because the process is unfair and back to front.  After setting aside a CCJ the local Judge only asks the D for a 'defence'.  No-one tells you to
that you can also add a full WS and evidence/photos (from GoogleStreetview) bundle... if this is what happened in your case, then only the Claimant had evidence at the hearing and you had none.

That puts you very much at a disadvantage and it only happens in post-CCJ set aside hearings.  It is all wrong but sadly, there's nothing you can do about it now.

It makes no sense that a shared entrance with ANPR picking up every single vehicle was accepted by the Judge as OK. Cars parking for the Supermarket or Community Centre are NOT BOUND by the terms in the other area.  Odd decision.

It also makes no sense that he didn't disallow the fake added DRA fee which almost all Judges see right through and wipe off.  That's what confirms to me that you got a part time rookie Judge who has no experience of parking cases (we call it DJ Lottery).