[Successful] Court Hearing v VCS in Residential Car Park - Permission from space owner

GropplerZorn · 12 February at 11:06PM

The Judge was irritated that the Claimant’s witness statement was not paginated, which he pointed out on several occasions, making for some awkward moments whenever the solicitor tried to reference parts of it.

The Judge found that my version of the story was incompatible with the terms of the contract offered by the PPC, therefore both could not stand as valid. There was an argument about whether the contract was explicit (the Judge denied this, as there was no contract signed by myself with the PPC), eventually the solicitor agreed that the contract was only implied by me parking on that land, and was therefore in conflict with the Claimant’s contract.

The Judge proceeded to say that in Parking Eye v Beavis the contract was accepted by the motorist because it was a commercial car park, whereas in my case it was a residential car park - therefore ownership of the land and any additional terms are not as straightforward as in the Parking Eye case. In a shopping center motorists are expected to look for restrictions or pay & display schemes, whereas in my case I had prior permission and denied entering into a contract with the PPC.

The Judge then moved to examine the Lease document and state that exclusive rights are granted to the Lessee for use of the parking space. The Claimant attempted to counter this, saying that these rights are only granted to the Lessee specifically, not to any third parties such as myself. Judge then argued that the same should also apply to other easements, for example that access to the apartment via the driveway, staircase, hall, etc can only be granted to the Lessee, and not any guests or visitors. The Judge declared this to be “absurd” as of course the Lessee may also allow others to use these.

The Claimant attempted to twist a clause in the Lease about parking in their favour, which said that “such alternative parking as may be required by Building Management from time to time”. The Solicitor tried to argue that this can be understood to mean any other restrictions or conditions can be applied in a more general sense, such as introducing requirements to display parking permits, which of course the Judge denied.

The Judge then turned to me for comments on the proceedings up to that point. I raised the point about the Claimant not having landowner authority, despite claiming they do. The Contract they have provided was signed by the Management Company, not the freeholder. The Judge agreed and made a note of this, although he didn’t rely on this in his final summary.

I also pointed out that two PCNs were issued on the same calendar day and the Judge asked for comment. The solicitor tried hopelessly to find an answer to this in the Claimant’s WS or the Supplementary WS, to no avail. He said it could be answered in a few minutes, if he emailed his client. The Judge refused this preposterous idea, saying that no further evidence can be submitted at this point.

Later, I used this attempt at doubling the debt sought as an example of unreasonable behaviour, to which the Judge agreed, therefore allowing me to claim attendance costs and 5 hours of case preparation. A generous total of £190 was awarded to me as costs; £95 for attending the hearing (capped) and £95 for 5 hrs of preparing the case (at £19/hour).

On top of this, the PPC will have had to pay the Solicitor’s fee which was over £200. Including the court fee, a net loss of nearly £500 for the PPC!

Although I had addressed this in my defence and WS, there was no discussion of the additional £60 DRA/damages added to both PCNs.

Coupon-mad · 13 February at 2:07AM

GropplerZorn said:

Hurray!!
I am delighted to have won my case a couple of days ago, thanks to a sympathetic judge, who seemed to have had experience with parking cases and had prepared for my case in detail.
The whole hearing lasted over 90 minutes and arguments between the Judge and Claimant’s solicitor got quite technical. After the solicitor finished his preamble, the Judge started tearing into his arguments, each of them gradually crumbling to pieces.
The Judge upheld my version of the story as valid - what he called “an alternative explanation as to my right to park in that space”. Namely, that I had permission from the leasehold owner of said space, written in a Witness Statement, which the Judge was happy to accept as proof. The Lease document was also instrumental in proving the rights granted to the Lessee (and extended to me through his agreement).

The icing on the cake: I also succeeded in securing £190 in costs, as I was able to demonstrate that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably, issuing two PCNs in the same calendar day, and refusing to address this or provide any explanation in their WS.

For those interested in details of the proceedings, do read:

GropplerZorn said:
The Judge was irritated that the Claimant’s witness statement was not paginated, which he pointed out on several occasions, making for some awkward moments whenever the solicitor tried to reference parts of it.
The Judge found that my version of the story was incompatible with the terms of the contract offered by the PPC, therefore both could not stand as valid. There was an argument about whether the contract was explicit (the Judge denied this, as there was no contract signed by myself with the PPC), eventually the solicitor agreed that the contract was only implied by me parking on that land, and was therefore in conflict with the Claimant’s contract.

The Judge proceeded to say that in Parking Eye v Beavis the contract was accepted by the motorist because it was a commercial car park, whereas in my case it was a residential car park - therefore ownership of the land and any additional terms are not as straightforward as in the Parking Eye case. In a shopping center motorists are expected to look for restrictions or pay & display schemes, whereas in my case I had prior permission and denied entering into a contract with the PPC.
The Judge then moved to examine the Lease document and state that exclusive rights are granted to the Lessee for use of the parking space. The Claimant attempted to counter this, saying that these rights are only granted to the Lessee specifically, not to any third parties such as myself. Judge then argued that the same should also apply to other easements, for example that access to the apartment via the driveway, staircase, hall, etc can only be granted to the Lessee, and not any guests or visitors. The Judge declared this to be “absurd” as of course the Lessee may also allow others to use these.

The Claimant attempted to twist a clause in the Lease about parking in their favour, which said that “such alternative parking as may be required by Building Management from time to time”. The Solicitor tried to argue that this can be understood to mean any other restrictions or conditions can be applied in a more general sense, such as introducing requirements to display parking permits, which of course the Judge denied.
The Judge then turned to me for comments on the proceedings up to that point. I raised the point about the Claimant not having landowner authority, despite claiming they do. The Contract they have provided was signed by the Management Company, not the freeholder. The Judge agreed and made a note of this, although he didn’t rely on this in his final summary.
I also pointed out that two PCNs were issued on the same calendar day and the Judge asked for comment. The solicitor tried hopelessly to find an answer to this in the Claimant’s WS or the Supplementary WS, to no avail. He said it could be answered in a few minutes, if he emailed his client. The Judge refused this preposterous idea, saying that no further evidence can be submitted at this point.
Later, I used this attempt at doubling the debt sought as an example of unreasonable behaviour, to which the Judge agreed, therefore allowing me to claim attendance costs and 5 hours of case preparation. A generous total of £190 was awarded to me as costs; £95 for attending the hearing (capped) and £95 for 5 hrs of preparing the case (at £19/hour).
On top of this, the PPC will have had to pay the Solicitor’s fee which was over £200. Including the court fee, a net loss of nearly £500 for the PPC!
Although I had addressed this in my defence and WS, there was no discussion of the additional £60 DRA/damages added to both PCNs.

Hooray! Brilliant court report. Well done!

Great Judge. Which court & Judge?

ANOTHER VCS ONE BITES THE DUST!

GropplerZorn · 13 February at 7:29PM

Thank you! This was at Warwickshire County Court. I’m afraid I can’t remember the name of the judge unfortunately, as I only briefly read it on the room allocation just before going in, full of nerves. Perhaps it will be written on my result confirmation when it comes through the mail.

Johnersh · 13 February at 10:11PM

Great result.

Coupon-mad · 14 February at 5:21PM

GropplerZorn said:

Thank you! This was at Warwickshire County Court. I’m afraid I can’t remember the name of the judge unfortunately, as I only briefly read it on the room allocation just before going in, full of nerves. Perhaps it will be written on my result confirmation when it comes through the mail.

Warwick Judges are great!

Fulhamwelsh1 · 21 February at 12:58PM

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to highlight a post that I can comment on.
However, congratulations GropplerZorn, on your successful court case. It's certainly given me confidence, should my issue end up in court. I have noted several of your points against the PPC and will make a similar representation, come the time.
Obviously, I realise that not all judges think the same way. I do hope though, that they will use precedence in my case and arrive at the same decision.

Well done, again.

Umkomaas · 21 February at 5:10PM

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to highlight a post that I can comment on.

Simply press the Quote button under the post you wish to highlight.

Obviously, I realise that not all judges think the same way. I do hope though, that they will use precedence in my case and arrive at the same decision.

Small claims court decisions form no 'precedent'. Each court decides their own cases on what is presented by way of claim and defence. Only appeal cases (and higher) bring 'persuasive' and 'precedent' into play. Nonetheless, you can quote whatever other case you like in your Witness Statement', it may cause the Judge to make a mental note!

Captain_Starlet · 21 February at 5:20PM

Well done!

Another one in the eye for VCS

The landowner contract in my case had a none existent company as one party to the contract. Judge didn't take much notice of that either. IMHO there's nowhere near enough scrutiny of landowner contracts.