PPM and BW Legal appealing after I beat them twice

DownwithPPCs

@Coupon-mad Thanks for that info. I will sort the transcript if indeed they do get it, once the case is closed.

Coupon-mad

DownwithPPCs said:

@Coupon-mad Thanks for that info. I will sort the transcript if indeed they do get it, once the case is closed.

That will be great, thankyou.

Transcripts of case judgments are what we need to best help new Defendant posters, and even better if the dark side stump up 90% of the money!

DownwithPPCs

So the appeal was today...

I was there in person. Unfortunately it did not go my way. The Judge allowed the ppc permission to appeal. I still think i can win this but i think it's going to come down to the judge and his interpretation at the final hearing.

I'll try and break the whole hearing down to make it easier to understand and extract the key points.

The judge mentioned at the beginning that I was not required to talk, but that I would be allowed to talk once he had finished with the other side. 

It looks like BW Legal had outsourced the work to a firm called LPC Law who was representing the Claimant. I'll refer to him as C.

C discussed four grounds which formed the basis of their grounds of appeal. The first one C immediately conceded and the Judge agreed that it was hopeless as the Judge said Witness Statement CPR rules do not apply to small claims. Hopefully this helps people on here as PPCs always try and use this one to scare motorists.

Where the judge was swayed was on two accounts from as far as I could tell. The Judge gave a pretty damning account of the previous Judge's conduct, and he heavily criticised him, which I was quite shocked at how candid he was. He said he understood that the previous hearing had been via video conference, and that connection and sound was ropey but that regardless the judge had made too quick a judgement, did not go through all the evidence, and most importantly that he was incorrect in saying that I had UNFETTERED right to park in said visitor bay. This is because there are restrictions in the lease such as whether a space is available and re weight of the car. As these are restrictions, my right is not unfettered. 

To make matters more complex there is a clause in the lease which says the manager can impose estate regulations from time to time. This is the clause the PPC is hiding behind because they claim the manager has the right via the lease to impose the parking scheme. However, this clause also mentions that the manager must act reasonably at all times, and also that said estate regulations must be for the benefit and convenience of the occupiers of the dwellings. Of course, the parking scheme is not for the convenience of the occupiers of the dwellings, and the manager has not acted reasonably in my opinion. I have a canvas of some of the estate with 100% agreement that residents do not want ppc on the estate. Furthermore, in the previous leaseholders meeting when it was put to leaseholders who was happy with current parking arrangements, not one hand was raised. I have this documented in the minutes. Furthermore, manager, who said that he pays for visitor scratch cards like everyone else lied and i have taken a photo of his car when he visits his mother, in which of course he has a staff permit from PPM, so he doesnt pay. He is also refusing to listen to residents until this court case is decided. This is stated as much in writing.

The judge mentioned on a number of accounts that the threshold for allowing permission to appeal is low. He said that if C's claim were fanciful he could deny their permission to appeal, but that if it had a prospect of success he would allow it. Due to two grounds mentioned he said there was a prospect of success and thus would have to allow the permission to appeal.

Before he made his judgement, which was a very long one, he let me talk. I believe I communicated everything that needed to be said. The judge directed me to the fact of C implementing financial costs for visitor scratch cards. I told him that was one of my points in my WS, that the lease gives the privilege of V spaces as standard, free of charge, and the manager and PPC were reoffering that privilege at a cost, and imposing penalties for those who do not conform, which is not for the benefit of the occupiers of the dwellings. The judge also mentioned that the claim was disproportionate (£169). I explained to him why I believed it to be so. I told him it was my opinion that C's interest in my case was much more than £169. If I win, there is a very real chance C may lose their contract on the land, one they make lots of money from. Also, if they win, a powerful precedent would be set in their favour. He mentioned the abuse, the fact that that C had taken me to court multiple times. I told him I don't understand why after three clear decisions and judgements, C is still allowed to chase me through the courts for the same matter. I also told him that whilst the last judge came to his decision quickly there is further evidence on my end which also wasn't even taken into account because Judge hadn't even got that far before making that decision. For example I had a verbal agreement after I won second hearing that I could park without being monitored on the estate (They reneged on this of course). He seemed to agree with all of the above, and at this point I really thought he was going to dismiss the appeal.

Whilst he said that C has a prospect of success he warned C that I also have convincing arguments.

I think the problem here is that the Judge had a real issue in how the previous hearing had been conducted, and that he agreed the previous Judge was wrong to say Unfettered when there was an element of interpretation in his opinion. 

After the judgement, Judge turned to me and said I'm sorry Mr X, it's not going to be a knockout today. Wasn't sure if that was some kind of hint or just him trying to console me.

Overall, quite a disappointment. I feel that with all the evidence of the conduct of C since 2018, along with previous judgements, them not being a party to the lease, Judge could have dismissed it due to fanciful prospect. I don't see how they can have a prospect of success in their desperate attempts to make something stick. Their argument has changed every single time, previously saying that lease is irrelevant, now they are trying to use it against me. I don't see how Judge cant see this.

I now have to file a respondents notice, and a skeleton argument for the final hearing.

Coupon-mad

You might want to send a pm to @bargepole to see if he can assist.  It is important to you that everything is done right.

DownwithPPCs

@Coupon-mad Thanks, I will. Do you have any thoughts on the above?

Coupon-mad

Well I'm not experienced in Respondent's Notices but can tell you that I've seen and heard about several appeals by parking firms.

In all cases they've walked all over it and won. Not because they are right but because the law is what you take into the courtroom and there's a huge danger they'll argue it better than you can and the higher Judge will favour a claimant (because sadly, we think they generally do, even unconsciously).

It is high stakes for them and potential exposure to costs for you.  Hence why I said, see if bargepole can help.  Don't float into it thinking you have the winning case just because you won your other hearings.  You are back to square one.

When they get that 'leg up' - allowance to appeal - to speak to a clueless (non-parking scam knowledgeable) aka gullible general Law Circuit Judge they will send a barrister or very experienced Rottweiler of a solicitor.

Even worse, in my experience, clueless HHJs tend to only know about the Beavis case and think parking firms should be supported (after all, the Beavis case said "parking charges are enforceable") and why the heck is this consumer causing a fuss over a few hundred?  And why should the Claimant be deprived of their claim, etc.

I've seen absolute FARCES at appeal.  

Not least OPS v Wilshaw where the HHJ was led up several garden paths and the judgment wasn't just wrong, it was in places, almost laughable how little the HHJ understood this type of contract law, consumer protection law and the regime within which private parking operates. All ignored or not considered properly in my view because he ate out of OPS' barrister's hand and openly wanted to overturn what he called AT THE START the first Judge's 'alarming' decision.

This is not just an uphill battle. It's a mountain and you will need help, hence my suggestion.

DownwithPPCs

APPEAL DISMISSED!

That's Two claims successfully defended and now an appeal dismissed as well.

Costs awarded to myself again. £240ish quid.

Only disappointment is that the appeal judge was unwilling to serve a CRO on the claimant, he said I could ask for this if they come at me again with another claim.

I will be obtaining the transcript of the judgement when it is available and will post it for others in the hope it may help them. It should provide me with security if they come at me again as it was a high level judge who said that his decisions are binding on all district judges.

The crux of the matter came down to the fact that the greedy scumbag parking company was charging for visitor scratchcards, therefore denying a right given by the lease, which gives visitor parking on a first come first served basis with no mention of charges or penalties.

Therefore the manager is in breach of the lease and I will now put pressure on him to oust these ***** off the development. This should be the knockout blow now.

Coupon-mad

DownwithPPCs said:

APPEAL DISMISSED!

That's Two claims successfully defended and now an appeal dismissed as well.

Costs awarded to myself again. £240ish quid.

Only disappointment is that the appeal judge was unwilling to serve a CRO on the claimant, he said I could ask for this if they come at me again with another claim.

I will be obtaining the transcript of the judgement when it is available and will post it for others in the hope it may help them. It should provide me with security if they come at me again as it was a high level judge who said that his decisions are binding on all district judges.

The crux of the matter came down to the fact that the greedy scumbag parking company was charging for visitor scratchcards, therefore denying a right given by the lease, which gives visitor parking on a first come first served basis with no mention of charges or penalties.

Therefore the manager is in breach of the lease and I will now put pressure on him to oust these ***** off the development. This should be the knockout blow now.

This is flipping brilliant!  Really important.

VERY well done to beat a BW Legal appeal that they could easily have walked all over, if up against a less well prepared and robust respondent.  You played a blinder!

Which Circuit Judge at Southend?

It is fantastic that you plan to get this transcript of THIS decision.  Yes please.  This will help loads of people fighting PPCs at their own homes.

As for the first instance hearing in front of the DJ, please could you go ahead and ask the court who the transcribers were and then ask for a copy?

As I said before (below), re the first hearing, this first transcript will be cheap if it already exists, which I suspect it does:

BTW if they have paid for a transcript, the good thing (once this is all over) is that you can ask the transcription company for a copy for maybe £10-£15 as it would only involve photocopying.

That could be a useful transcript for others here in future if you were happy to buy a copy & share it (only once the case is closed).

BW will have spent hundreds on getting it transcribed...! 

DownwithPPCs

@Coupon-mad I have the transcript from the second hearing, however it's not much use as Claimant's appeal was based on the fact that DJ was not thorough enough at that hearing hence the permission to appeal. However, the new transcript should be a massive help for people who have PPCs on their developments who are trying to implement a paid scheme.

Thanks v much, the barrister that turned up this time was not from bw legal for some reason.

He tried to weasel his way out even changing his argument after a short lunch break where he phoned Parking and property management to take instruction. But the facts of the matter remained and PPM/BW Legal lose again. They put 3.5k into their costs and then quibbled over my £650 costs saying I'm only entitled to so much etc etc. but so far including transcripts, court fees, barrister fees across all the hearings, I imagine I've cost them a good 6k, maybe more. I'm sure just a drop in the ocean from the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands they've extorted from residents on the premises over the years, but it feels good to have at least served them some damage. If I can oust them, however, it will be a major blow for them and justice served.

Coupon-mad

Indeed.

Maybe wait till January 2024 to be sure BW aren't trying to appeal THIS decision to the CoA.  I doubt it but you need to be clear/safe - and sure this claim/appeal is not still 'live' - before you show us both transcripts.

The previous DJ may have made a fast decision but that transcript will give us full background context for this one.  I assume you either got a copy free or for peanuts?

Also if you wait till January you might get lucky and find BW have already had THIS one transcribed too (they might do it to understand what went wrong and consider pushing it up the food chain again).