Won in court today—-(Previously) A little help and advice please.

berty50

So shall I email again quoting the S.I or leave it until the hearing in Jan? 

KeithP

berty50 said:

So shall I email again quoting the S.I or leave it until the hearing in Jan? 

Leave it to the hearing.

When you arrive at the court mention that you are the Lay Representative. 
If they have trouble with that wave that Rights of Audience paper at them.

berty50

Okay, that’s great Thanks. Just out of interest, should the judge refuse do I have a course of action or will we have to suck it and see?

KeithP

KeithP said:

berty50 said:

So shall I email again quoting the S.I or leave it until the hearing in Jan? 

Leave it to the hearing.

When you arrive at the court mention that you are the Lay Representative. 
If they have trouble with that wave that Rights of Audience paper at them.

I mean, and should've said, mention it to the usher when you arrive and 'report in'.
Any 'discussion' will hopefully be resolved before you meet the Judge, but if not, respectfully mention it to him/her.

berty50

Thank you.

berty50

I wonder if anyone with access to case judgement summaries can help me with this. In the claimants witness statement they have made the following statement using One Parking Solutions v Wilshaw
 

1. The appeal of One Parking Solution Ltd v Norma Wilshaw (1 February 2021) handed
   down by His Honour Judge Simpkiss at paragraph 89 states "ParkingEye v Beavis is dealing with a different charge, payable for overstaying after the expiry of the initial free period. At paragraph 102 Lord Neuberger makes it clear that it would not fall foul of section 62 [of the Consumer Rights Act 20151 because even if there was an imbalance between the parties it did not arise "contrary to the requirement of good
   faith" because the owner of the land and the management company had a legitimate
   interest to protect. In the present case / cannot see how it can be said that there was
   bad faith.

I can’t find the summary for OPS v Wilshaw to check and just wondered if anyone had a link for it because where it states paragraph 102 and then quote Lord Neuberger, I’d like to know is that paragraph 102 from OPS v Wilshaw or 102 from Parking Eye v Beavis. 

I’ve searched Patking Eye v Beavis and a/ that’s not paragraph 102 so it’s not a direct quote, and b/ In 102 Lord Neiberger mentions The Consumer Contract Regulations not the Consumer Rights Act as quoted above, so either the claimant has misquoted or HHJ Simpkiss made an error?

Thoughts would be appreciated…thanks.

Coupon-mad

But if you used the Template Defence, it already deals with that case.

That Judge was hopeless in so many ways,  IMHO.  Lack of good faith doesn't mean there must be 'bad' faith!  He also had no clue about parking cases, DVLA & BPA landowner authority requirements, nor (for that matter) contract law.  He admitted it!  Then let himself be led by the only well-prepared barrister in the virtual room, who talked HHJ Simpkiss into relying on outdated case law from over 100 years ago, that went out with the ark.

You really do not want to read that car crash.

berty50

Unfortunately I did the defence before I discovered this helpful forum so didn’t use the one recommended by yourself. Im pretty strong on what I’m saying but need to subtly argue against a HHJ as an LIP (Lay Rep) armed with cut n pastes and recently gleaned knowledge. I don’t want to be a Dunning Kruger and want to have a decent knowledge of the cases they are using to defend against. 

Do you know if HHJ Simpkiss misquoted Lord Nueberger in the 102 reference, by quoting the wrong act?
  

Coupon-mad

Yep he must be wrong there because the Beavis hearing was (just) pre-CRA 2015, and the Supreme Court Judges decided to ignore that new legislation (which they wrongly said was 'the same' as the UTCCRS) and they ONLY dealt with whether a parking charge offended against the UTCCRS.  The CRA didn't feature.

You don't need to argue against a flawed appeal case that the other side hasn't even appended the transcript for, and believe me, you really do not want to waste 20 minutes of your life reading the appallingly flawed fudgement of HHJ Simpkiss in OPS v Wilshaw.

It really is IMHO an embarrassment to the county court system on several levels, and Judges are ignoring it.

I was involved as I had won the case at first hearing.  Won it too well.  It was overturned without me, and the Defendant was screwed over.  A car crash of a case, won by the barrister who spoke better.  Horrible - but we crowdfunded to cover most of her costs and it's not worth wasting a thought over.

Mouse007

Coupon-mad said:

But if you used the Template Defence, it already deals with that case.

...

You really do not want to read that car crash.

But in fairness to Berty, he, she, they are only doing exactly what I have done. Micro analysed the template defence wanting to be sure they actually understand it in full. To sign a statement of truth as being within their actual knowledge is a serious declaration.

I understand that in this case the Judge was misled and got it totally wrong, I understand that not from what is available here but from previous knowledge. I can argue that corner, I think Berty feels otherwise.

Personally I think he, she, they should be applauded for paying attention to the detail. Not least because I think they will be more case ready on the day than those who don’t.