Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with £50, £60 or £70 PCN and no £ DRA fee on the sign

Coupon-mad

That's the one, @Umkomaas thankyou.  I had it in my email discussions with the BMPA group but just couldn't find it as we have so much going on 'off forum' too!

This looks like gold-dust, I thought.  They can't even spell 'judgments' and let Claimants have the power to press the 'detonate your credit'  button. This is so wrong under GDPR:

"6.  The County Court Business Centre (CCBC) is a bulk issuing centre, and all 
claims and Judgements are issued electronically with no human intervention."

1505grandad

Not sure if this is relevant:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-civil-business-centres-performance-information/weekly-performance-national-business-centres-updated-5-december-2022

Transparency data

Weekly performance national business centre updated 23 October 2023

Updated 23 October 2023

In this they state:-

"Entering judgment (online)                Automated online issue"

Jenni_D

Judgement (British English) is as equally valid as Judgment (US English), albeit Judgment is usually used in legal contexts. Perhaps whoever created that document had their spill chucker set to British English.  

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks to @pinkelephant12 for finding this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6481628/justice-committee-inquiry-into-the-county-court

Even though the parking CfE is closed, this one is open until early December.

People who win their cases or have discontinuances should be urged to use their meritless case paperwork and woeful Particulars of Claim as evidence to change the future landscape to stop bulk litigation of parking claims.

THIS MOJ CFE IS IMPORTANT FOR REGULARS AND THISE WITH EXPERIENCE OF A COURT CLAIM OR CCJ TO DO.

EVIDENCE NOT OPINION.

Found this article on this vital new inquiry:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/mps-launch-probe-of-growing-delays-in-county-court

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) started a campaign about it this year and said that “severe delays” at the CNBC in Northampton were “contributing to a damaging sclerosis in civil justice”.

ACSO executive director Matthew Maxwell Scott pointed to other research it had carried out that revealed a “postcode lottery” for court users, with average waits at 353 days but the variance from 251 days in the best-performing areas to 462 days in the worst.

“We’ve already urged the committee to ask experienced practitioners at the coalface why this is, and seek their help to set out sensible ideas for tackling the backlogs, be this through targeted extra resources, better use of digital modernisation or more alternative dispute resolution, where appropriate,” he said.

“Looking ahead, this inquiry should be a stepping stone to a full-scale commission on civil justice with the needs of consumers as its heart.”

Interested parties have until 17 JANUARY to make a submission to the committee as they extended the deadline.

Coupon-mad

There is much for us (including any Newbies who have experienced a CCJ or parking roboclaim) to provide evidence on.

But it smacks of "shutting the door after the bulk litigation horses have bolted" (because it is primarily parking 'roboclaims' that have caused this, right under the noses of the MoJ):

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is; the extent of any regional variations; and the effect of delays on litigants and the administration of justice

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The condition of the court estate, and its effect on the work of the County Court

• The use of technology in the County Court and how it could be used to improve the service provided by the County Court

•  The effect of the court reform programme on the County Court, including the new Online Civil Money Claims service and the Damages Claims service

• The current level of fees and the approach taken to costs in the County Court, and how the fees collected are used as part of the current funding arrangements for the County Court

• Whether there is sufficient judicial capacity in the County Court, and current steps to improve judicial capacity

• Whether there is sufficient staffing of the County Court

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• The current procedural mechanisms used by the County Court to resolve disputes

• The quality of data available on the work of the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

1505grandad

Hopefully because of the long delays there will be no automation of allocation enacted that will affect:-

(Courtesy of UncleThomasCobley)

"As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, if you follow the advice and use the robust template defence, including the CEL v Chan transcript as a preliminary matter, this will be thrown out at allocation stage."

Coupon-mad

They are barking up the wrong tree if they fail to recognise that the real problem to address is not 'speeding up and enabling' the abusive number of parking claims, regardless of merit or vexatious roboclaim boilerplate POC.

Utter madness if that's their approach.

It is stark staring obvious what MPs need to call for the MoJ to do about parking claims. Easy:

Separate out parking claims. Talk to the DLUHC about using the new Single Appeals Service as a certified ADR which will handle disputed PCNs and protect people from CCJs which ruin millions of people's finances, employment and social mobility prospects.

That's up to a THIRD of the most meritless bulk 'roboclaims' removed from the small claims system in one fell swoop.

Send them instead via a bespoke route overseen by a robust new DLUHC appointed Scrutiny Board, with the needs of consumers at its heart. Funded by the rogue parking industry (after all, they will save loads in court fees if parking cases can be mostly kept out of court, and they are already expecting to pay for the new SAS).

Job done.

AND it mirrors the promise made by Lord whatsisname*, years ago, when an alternative system was set up for decriminalised LA PCNs and it was said that a parking ticket should never affect consumers' credit rating.

* anyone? Can't recall which reforms!

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

They are barking up the wrong tree if they fail to recognise that the real problem to address is not 'speeding up and enabling' the abusive number of parking claims, regardless of merit or vexatious roboclaim boilerplate POC.

Utter madness if that's their approach.

It is stark staring obvious what MPs need to call for the MoJ to do about parking claims. Easy:

Separate out parking claims. Talk to the DLUHC about using the new Single Appeals Service as a certified ADR which will handle disputed PCNs and protect people from CCJs which ruin millions of people's finances, employment and social mobility prospects.

That's up to a THIRD of the most meritless bulk 'roboclaims' removed from the small claims system in one fell swoop.

Send them instead via a bespoke route overseen by a robust new DLUHC appointed Scrutiny Board, with the needs of consumers as its heart. Funded by the rogue parking industry (after all, they will save loads in court fees if parking cases can be mostly kept out of court, and they are already expecting to pay for the new SAS).

Job done.

AND it mirrors the promise made by Lord whatsisname*, years ago, when an alternative system was set up for decriminalised LA PCNs and it was said that a parking ticket should never affect consumers' credit rating.

* anyone? Can't recall which reforms!

Coupon-mad said:

They are barking up the wrong tree if they fail to recognise that the real problem to address is not 'speeding up and enabling' the abusive number of parking claims, regardless of merit or vexatious roboclaim boilerplate POC.

Utter madness if that's their approach.

It is stark staring obvious what MPs need to call for the MoJ to do about parking claims. Easy:

Separate out parking claims. Talk to the DLUHC about using the new Single Appeals Service as a certified ADR which will handle disputed PCNs and protect people from CCJs which ruin millions of people's finances, employment and social mobility prospects.

That's up to a THIRD of the most meritless bulk 'roboclaims' removed from the small claims system in one fell swoop.

Send them instead via a bespoke route overseen by a robust new DLUHC appointed Scrutiny Board, with the needs of consumers as its heart. Funded by the rogue parking industry (after all, they will save loads in court fees if parking cases can be mostly kept out of court, and they are already expecting to pay for the new SAS).

Job done.

AND it mirrors the promise made by Lord whatsisname*, years ago, when an alternative system was set up for decriminalised LA PCNs and it was said that a parking ticket should never affect consumers' credit rating.

* anyone? Can't recall which reforms!

A fair and robust single appeals service will surely mean that the pipeline of claims that reach the courts will be greatly reduced. They cannot seem to see the wood for the trees.

I have no faith in Gove at all. He is destroying the private rental market and many private landlords are selling up reducing the amount of properties available for rent.

Coupon-mad

Regardless of whom I might (or might not) have faith in, I am constantly reassured by the fact I'm involved and still pushing the issues that we know are important.

There are regular meetings even now.

So it gives me faith because they are still listening to me.  Can't tell you how fulfilling that work has been and continues to be!

I know that, without one of us 'parking gurus' in the group, PPC World would have got away with loads, despite other good organisations representing motorists.

We all need to do this latest MPs' Call for Evidence about the county courts and point this Committee in the right direction.

patient_dream

Snakes_Belly said:

A fair and robust single appeals service will surely mean that the pipeline of claims that reach the courts will be greatly reduced. They cannot seem to see the wood for the trees.

I have no faith in Gove at all. He is destroying the private rental market and many private landlords are selling up reducing the amount of properties available for rent.

100%l agree about Gove. He is one who will lose Suinak;s General Election.
Maybe in the re-shuffle, Sunak will get rid of him ... fingers crossed