Claim for DBL (UKPC) for parking in unmarked bays

Coupon-mad

LunaraEcho86 said:

Yes the £352 includes all the fees as well so overall would have been cheaper to pay the 3 tickets....My OH tried to explain that he stopped on yellow to escort our son to the pitch due to safeguarding where a QR code is needed to sign in a player but the judge just dismissed it and said he should have appealed earlier...

But the only fees to be added for ONE SUCCESSFUL PCN at £100 were:

£50 legal fees
£35 claim filing fee
£27 hearing fee

All suitably reduced to take account of the failed elements of the PCNs.

No fees for the advocate because the Defendant didn't act unreasonably.

£212 in total

Probably no interest, or minimal.

Sounds like your poor OH was walked all over. Terrible judge.

Did they send a legal rep who spouted rubbish and asked for his/her fee that they can't have in small claims unless the judge finds the other party unreasonable?

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

The Defence is that the car was only captured in photographs for x minutes, whilst the Defendant was unloading kit and dropping off a child who needed escorting to the football field area.  This activity is known as 'assisted alighting' and is not part of any 'parking period' as defined in statute.  There were no hatched markings nor double red lines, nor signs prohibiting loading/unloading, therefore unloading and setting down a passenger at a quiet corner kerb was reasonable. The ticketer must have witnessed this and was lurking deliberately to catch out parents dropping off children at football practice/matches, taking quick, covert surveillance photos to upload behind the Defendant's back. No traffic or pedestrians were obstructed, and no PCN was found on the windscreen. This type of covert operation breaches the Data Protection Act 2018, Surveillance camera Code of Practice and the MHCLG incoming statutory Code (see definition of a parking period).

Judge ignored the defence that this was assisted alighting and that you can do this on double yellows, under their normal meaning.

LunaraEcho86

Coupon-mad said:

LunaraEcho86 said:

Yes the £352 includes all the fees as well so overall would have been cheaper to pay the 3 tickets....My OH tried to explain that he stopped on yellow to escort our son to the pitch due to safeguarding where a QR code is needed to sign in a player but the judge just dismissed it and said he should have appealed earlier...

But the only fees to be added for ONE SUCCESSFUL PCN at £100 were:

£50 legal fees
£35 claim filing fee
£27 hearing fee

All suitably reduced to take account of the failed elements of the PCNs.

No fees for the advocate because the Defendant didn't act unreasonably.

£212 in total

Probably no interest, or minimal.

Sounds like your poor OH was walked all over. Terrible judge.

Did they send a legal rep who spouted rubbish and asked for his/her fee that they can't have in small claims unless the judge finds the other party unreasonable?

The legal fees were £70
Claim filing fee £70
Hearing fee £85

Interest was 7p per day added up to £27

These seem quite excessive...

Coupon-mad

Yes because the original claim was for over £650, so those fees were spent up front, then the hearing fee of £85. Technically not wrong. But.. 

...but with two thirds of the claim disallowed, it makes no sense in terms of fairness to allow all the higher fees for bringing the 3 PCNs to court.

Essentially, your husband won against those two PCNs.

I know your OH wouldn't have known but the Judge should have been asked to reduce the fees to the level that would have applied to £100 claim.

With the Overriding Objective in mind, he should not have been expected to shoulder the cost of their failed claim for two PCNs. Otherwise, anyone could have a punt at inflated claims & hope just one part sticks. Which is what they did...

Nothing to do but pay the amount awarded straight away and put it behind you. What goes around comes around, and that predatory firm will get their comeuppance in the end, I hope.