Saba/ ZZPS / debt - claim.com small claims court action quoting bylaws ?

Grizebeck

Ooo that's fantastic news 
Did the rep have anything to say about this magistrates issue being heard in the county court.

kryten3000

Grizebeck said:

Ooo that's fantastic news 
Did the rep have anything to say about this magistrates issue being heard in the county court.

Yes, before the hearing started, after they told me I had no right of audience as a Lay Rep because it wasn't a full hearing, they tried to suggest that "byelaws are not just for magistrates". 
 

Grizebeck

kryten3000 said:

Grizebeck said:

Ooo that's fantastic news 
Did the rep have anything to say about this magistrates issue being heard in the county court.

Yes, before the hearing started, after they told me I had no right of audience as a Lay Rep because it wasn't a full hearing, they tried to suggest that "byelaws are not just for magistrates". 
 

Ha really clueless. As the matter was already tracked he couldn't be more wrong.
I wonder where they dragged that awful rep from.
I doubt the judge agreed with them on the rights of audience issue

kryten3000

Grizebeck said:

Ha really clueless. As the matter was already tracked he couldn't be more wrong.

I wonder where they dragged that awful rep from.
I doubt the judge agreed with them on the rights of audience issue

I let the defendant speak for themselves, I didn't really need to be there they did an amazing job and I just quietly pointed out a couple of things and when the rep said their client maintained that the "PCNs were still owing" I asked them to clarify "Penalty" or "Parking"?  They said it didn't matter.  I disagreed. 

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

I'm updating this thread because the Defendant in the other SABA case I assisted with deleted their profile.  This case was concluded today:

The hearing was actually an application to allow amended Particulars of Claim which expanded on the woeful text on the Money Claim form (which didn't even specify the dates of the parking events).  The amended Particulars made it absolutely clear that the charges were Penalty Notices issued under Railway Byelaw 14.

The DJ refused the application on the grounds that there was no realistic chance of success at a hearing and that they would mean that the court would be asked to decide on a criminal matter which was an abuse of process.

Initially the DJ was going to send the case to a final hearing because the Claimant wouldn't back down but after a brief adjournment and acting on the overriding objective, struck the claim out entirely for the above reasons.

No costs, but an expensive outcome for Askews as they had paid for an N244 and the usual hired representative.

The best part was when the DJ started reading from this very forum 

This brilliant - and quite right. What a waste of the court's time, and the D. And yours!

I wonder how many of these SABA (well past the 6 month limitation period) Penalties have actually caused default CCJs?