Berkeley centre Sheffield

Albert_Arkwright

I had understood the evidence doesn't go with the defence, I just wanted to ensure I could back up my defence in the w/s later. I suppose at worst if you can't it will just render that point not relevant, trying to make sure (we) the defendant understands their submitted defence, don't want to be accused of "cut and paste"  .

Is this the thread you mean, I had already read it, tbh I have searched quite a bit trying to find a transcript and read quite a few comments about it and I think your line above explains it best.
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6455080/court-report-case-won-on-fairlie-v-fenton-and-hancock-v-promontoria#latest

I have finally received the PDM logs, not really helpful except there were a lot of 1 hour tickets dispensed, strange as you don't need to have a ticket for the first free hour, really there shouldn't be any as not necessary. Makes you wonder how many others have suffered the same fate, many no doubt paid (or at least put a £1 in) "just in case / better to be safe" without it registering but without staying longer than the free hour, others just paying the fine charge and moaning. Unless they read my thread it will be pretty impossible to find them to collaborate our stories.
I suppose it is still irrelevant really, you should check your ticket, just because it's normal human behaviour to presume all's well and not to.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the case.  There's no transcript.

Albert_Arkwright

Can't stop thinking about those logs, so annoying to see something probable but not be able to prove it, making me argue with myself. I feel like putting in reference to all the unnecessary 1 hour tickets dispensed and just asking "why?";
I just argue it would be worthless, the claimant will no doubt say it means nothing, lots of people just wanted a free ticket.
Its crazy really, an obnoxious youth (we got plenty of them) could just go sticking loads of made up VRM's in and getting tickets out. Free confetti any body?

Albert_Arkwright

Another point for you guys to clarify, must be getting fed up with me now;

BPA 27.9 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

best pic I can get, the sign will now be in a skip somewhere;


I know it's hard to read but the "free for 1 hour" and the "£1 for 1-2 hours pay on arrival" not stated on this sign - pretty bad show really making some poor disable person drag himself over to the main sign,to find out he didn't have to use the ticket machine anyway as he will only be 15 mins. 
And as KADOE says;
C1.1. The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.
Does that mean there is a breach there? seems so.
Not just being pedantic, this defendant parked here whilst caring for a disabled person, only time she has gone here is with this disabled person. Understandably not wishing to leave that person any longer than absolutely necessary alone in an unlocked car, getting the ticket was done with the utmost haste. She same as a disabled person on their own should be aware of any "relevant terms" without having to go over and study the main sign.?

1505grandad

"
BPA 27.9 - So that disabled motorists can decide ....."

A heads-up  -  when using/quoting BPA CoP make sure you refer to the correct country  -  you are quoting from:-

C  OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND

England is para 19.9

Albert_Arkwright

All cases I have seen put up as precedents re the extra charges that are being banded about on this site and elsewhere, I find on further investigation to be overturned, sometimes at the 2nd appeal - except the wilkinson case at Bradford, which some how the judge said there was to be no appeal. 1. Am I to expect appeal after appeal until they eventually win? and 2. how was Judge Jackson able to disallow Appeals to her Judgement?

KeithP

The process is...
1. Claimant loses case,
2. Claimant asks for permission to appeal,
3. Judge refuses permission to appeal,
4. The end.

Coupon-mad

Albert_Arkwright said:

how was Judge Jackson able to disallow Appeals to her Judgement?

This is normal.

When PPCs lose they get their rep (standard instructions) to immediately ask the Judge for their permission to appeal. 

District Judges say 'no' (as standard) if they don't believe there is any scope and they are confident they have not erred.  That's all you see in that Transcript.  Normal stuff.

BUT when a DJ says they won't give leave to appeal, there is one alternative route and that is applying for permission to appeal above the DJ's head.

They throw some old legalese blather at a clueless Circuit Judge and they know, if they can just get a foot in the door (permission to appeal), the credulous and barrister-worshipping Circuit Judge will probably fall for their codswallop and get persuaded at a second hearing to overturn judgments.

Because they send a barrister who walks also over the Defendant and (because they've jumped through the first hoop - permission to appeal) they are then pushing against an open door because many Circuit Judges just have zero idea about the scam of private parking.

Hence the following travesties:

- VCS v Ward
- OPS v Wilshaw
- Britannia v Semark-Jullien
- VCS v Percy

Albert_Arkwright

Thanks,in at least one of those cases the appeals judge only awarded the £100, which is still really important.

Just to be clear what you 2 are saying, the judge passes judgement - the claimant asks to appeal -  the Judge refuses - the claimant goes over the Judges head and gets an appeal? I wonder why they didn't with Judge Jackson, not so much the value of the claim but the precedent it leaves available?

We have stated that as there is no independent appeals system fit for purpose yet, consumers that believe their claim to be unfair, have no option but to wait for a court case to settle the original claim and the added £70 is irrelevant to that, just an added unjustifiable, disproportionate, penal charge. Plus the DLUHC reference to the actual small cost to the company, the fact that the industry says the successful claims £70 is necessary to pay for the unsuccessful claims (flipin' cheek, basically take unfair cases to court- it doesn't matter if we lose, the numpties are paying for it,), and we can refer to just the one case of Judge Jackson's (at the moment)

It was getting us down a bit last night, we have spent so much time researching and checking out advice, just to see at best it will probably only get us through the first round, they will keep coming back until we are down on the canvas. Still we will go down fighting, especially with the MP's following the case we could go down in a blaze of glory who knows - we shall defend our car parks to the end, we shall never surrender, we will fight in the.......

1505grandad

"...they will keep coming back until we are down on the canvas."

Well at least I agree with one statement by G.O. discussed in another thread:-

"Finally, we’ve got to ask – what’s your favourite motivational quote?

When you get knocked down, you’ve got to get back up again."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gary-osner-qa-powered-parkmaven-lydia-woodward-1c