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

Coupon-mad

We know...horrendous isn't it?

This is why we are influencing Government to push ahead with the planned statutory Code of Practice.  Change must come robustly and universally.

We don't just fight case by case, and we are being listened to.  I have a direct voice to Government and the parking industry absolutely HATE that!

berty50

I read the piece in Parking News you recommended re their thoughts on the DLUHC progress, it’s a slow one that’s for sure..

berty50

BTW, I’ve realised that certain people on this forum like yourself deserve praise and thanks for what you’re doing  I’d just like to add that as well. 

Coupon-mad

berty50 said:

I read the piece in Parking News you recommended re their thoughts on the DLUHC progress, it’s a slow one that’s for sure..

Yes - delay was caused mainly by the Judicial Reviews of course (as planned by the parking industry) but also then by the farce of the Prime Minister game of musical chairs in the Autumn.

But the wheels have turned again since then and we all anticipate the (final) Public Consultation soon.

The Code of Practice is only stalled, not shelved.

I love what I do.  The Steering Group involvement has been powerful and IMHO they needed one of us.  We know what we know, and the evidence we have on this forum (of sharp practice by PPCs and debt collector letter bullying by DRAs and roboclaim 'legals') is massive.

I know we've made a difference.

berty50

We won in court today.😀

I’ll  post up the comments later which may help with relevant  points gleaned that may assist others facing ANPR camera signage, unfair terms, the parking time along with consideration and grace periods. 

Id like to thank the main contributors in this forum for pointing me in the right direction and helping me understand points of law to follow. In fact the Judge was wonderful and very helpful too in giving non verbal signals which aided me to ask the right questions of a very young and inexperienced agent and not waste time in unnecessary points that I’d thought we’d need to discuss.

Coupon-mad

Yay! Well done you.  Can't wait to read more.

Mouse007

Delighted to hear you were "case ready". Also looking forward to reading more. Well done

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Yay! Well done you.  Can't wait to read more.

Mouse007 said:

Delighted to hear you were "case ready". Also looking forward to reading more. Well done

Ditto. Ditto. 🤓

berty50

Thanks for the comments. I hope these notes aren’t too long but I’m still feeling pumped after the experience. 

My first time acting as a Lay Rep so a totally new experience. The judge asked about my background and how I knew the defendant then explained what I could and couldn’t do along with the behaviour they expected from us during the hearing.

I was advised the burden of proof was with the claimant to prove their claim and for me to take notes specifically on any questions raised from these. 

The Agent was very pleasant but was clearly not briefed and spent a lot of time scrolling through the W.S on her Mac looking to try and clarify points asked by the judge.

This was quite useful for me because I could see what the judge was asking for and due to the help of this forum I knew that she wasn’t giving the correct clarification and that I could use this to my advantage.

I’d asked for certain documents including the landowner agreement under CPR 31.14 so had sight of this prior to completing the W.S. The landowner agreement was a hybrid cut and shut with the signature page dated 9 months after the parking event. The original date of the 36 month agreement showed it expired 2 months before the parking event and I’d included these points in my W.S.

The judge had read my W.S and referred to these dates to ask the questions re the landowner agreement so asked the questions for me, which was nice!  The agent tried to imply that a review option date in the contract as being the date a new contract would have commenced but the judge wasn’t having that and implied that they were either careless in their bundle preparation or didn’t have a right to enforce at that time period.

We spent a long time time discussing the consideration and grace periods. The judge was open to looking at these in both the BPA and the DULHC codes of practice. I’d included the news statement by PBA Director of Corporate Affairs Kelvin Reynolds which she read and asked the agent if she had any questions on this, which they didn’t.

We looked at the DLUHC consideration and grace periods including the tariff matrix for 5 and 10 mins = 15 minutes overall which the judge seemed okay with. In fact she agreed with most of the points about the DLUHC CoP including the elements from the Ministerial forward that I managed to get in. 

The judge spent time asking the agent questions about the claimants understanding of grace periods and why it wasn’t mentioned in their W.S. Obviously the poorly briefed agent couldn’t answer other than they thought it was 10 minutes and the overstay was 12 minutes.

The actual parking time period was discussed which for them was the time spent between ANPR records. I discussed parking in Ashby V Tolhurst and Jopson v Homeguard and in addition the DLUHC CoP on the definition of the parking period not being when the vehicle enters and exits at the ANPR camera. When the agent was asked if they had any questions again they didn’t.

The issue I dwelt on and the judge was very interested in was the initial signage at the ANPR camera which just says “3 hour max stay and the terms are on notices inside the car park”. My point was, if UKPC consider the contract is formed on the ANPR at entrance because of the signage, but the terms are on the signage in the car park, then this was unlawful and an unfair term under CRA Schedule 2. 10. Knowing that I was also pleading double recovery, I brought a smile to the judges face when I said they may like to keep the reference page handy because I’d be using the same Act in the double recovery points.

My third point was the double recovery but the judge guided me away quite quickly which surprised me but I did feel from their wry smiles and body language that the case was won in the landowner agreement and reinforced by the definition of the parking event which wasn’t ANPR times and neatly fitted under the 5 mins consideration and 10 mins grace periods shown in the DLUHC document.

In the summary the judge said the claimant hadn’t produced evidence that they had entitlement to the recovery due to the lack of contract detail but even if they (the judge) were wrong on that point, on the balance of probability, believed that the defendant hadn’t parked for longer than 3 hours and even with the grace periods added, wouldn’t have breached any parking terms. Case dismissed. 

A couple of additional points, this particular car park is a notorious bottle neck and locals know what it’s like. I never go near it at weekends or bank holidays. Interestingly the judge knew it well and explained to the agent what a problem it was to park, and therefore believed the defendants statement about the amount of time it took to park and exit. I thought that was a nice human touch by the judge and quite unexpected. 

I was surprised at how the judge questioned the claimant, asking many questions that I thought I’d have to ask. They were considerate towards me and I could see from their subliminal body language which way the hearing was going. I was also surprised at how little knowledge the agent had regarding their W.S and was on the back foot from the off. 

Mouse007

If I could hit that thanks button a hundred times, thank you *100