Bakers Road Car Park Uxbridge. Excel/Elms Legal Claim. Won. Case Dismissed.

Gr1pr

Your own account

The court will only send out the written judgment

Castle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861985#Comment_81861985

Just your account please.

HalfTheWorldAway

Ok. Will let you know over the weekend

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862037#Comment_81862037

Yes please! It helps scared lurkers.

Yay well done. Brilliant result!

ANOTHER EXCEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

Tell us which court & judge (if you noted it), did the C send anyone?

Did that rep try to speak to you in the waiting room? What did you say?

What did you and their rep say at the hearing? How did you feel?

Was it obvious from the get-go that the judge was on your side? Did he/she criticise the C?

What did the judge say about the case and evidence? What won it?

Did you remember to ask for your costs at the end or has that ship now sailed?

HalfTheWorldAway

Thanks Coupon-mad

Right here goes.

The court was Uxbridge Crown Court sitting at Wandsworth. I didn't catch the judges name.

The rep did not try to talk to us before the hearing.

First off I found the judge to be welcoming and friendly. She started off by acknowledging that I wished to act as lay rep for my daughter and quoted the relevant CPR rule that allowed her to let me do so, and that she was quite happy for me to act in that capacity.

I was very nervous. I did try to prepare for the case beforehand and wrote down the points I wished to address , but to be honest at the start I feel I didn't really do that.

The judge explained the procedure. Their rep to state the Claimant's case first, then my turn to put our defence and finally back to the Claimant rep to counter my/our defence.

Their rep presented their case. He was reading straight from the WS written by Jake Burgess. In a nutshell it was based upon the usual contract law. Signage was correct. By parking where she did she must have known that a permit was required, despite having purchased a pay an display ticket. Terms and conditions were fair. She had entered into the contract.He also addressed the charge as being fair according to case law. He did go on a bit about this, but I feel he was confusing this with the defence entered against debt recovery fees added on top. He didn't really address this point until later. He referred to different pages of the Claimants WS mainly a photo of the car parked with the sign (the one earlier in this thread) showing next to it, and also there was a map diagram showing the layout of the bays and the position of tariff boards and the entrance. He stated that there was a helpline to ring should the Defendant have wanted to enquire about an ePermit.

When it came to our turn, I don't mind admitting that I struggled to put our case into words at first . I stumbled quite a bit, but the judge was very good. She told me to take my time and made me feel that I wasn't under pressure.

The main point of our case was first, at the main entrance to the car park is a sign stating the car park is private land. The car park is a Pay and Display car park. This is the contract (Pay and Display)entered into by the defendant. I argued that the sign was ambiguous as it also stated PRIVATE LAND at the top, and could equally have applied to the whole car park, or as they claimed, certain (undefined) areas of land/bays. I further argued that as the signage said PRIVATE LAND, how could it be ascertained whether it applied to bays or land. There was no signs, lines, or demarcation defining "permit only" bays. I also stated there were no signs, or painted words, in the actual bays that explicitly stated the bays were permit only. In essence there was no easy, clear and concise way of distinguishing the "permit only" bays from the rest of the Pay and Display bays. I referred to the main tariff board that was concerned with Pay and Display and explained that there was no reference to the permit only bays, yet mentioned disabled bays as being restricted. I also referred to the map (entered by the Claimant) and explained to the judge that even that didn't show the marked bays on it. I then touched upon Pace vs Lengyel and said that it was impossible for the Defendant to display a permit she had no possibility of obtaining, and also that the Debt Recovery Fees were an "add on" over and above the PC. I said they weren't a true reflection of recovery costs. I also stated that his wasn't a case of non payment, overstay or deliberate parking in restricted bays, more that it was unclear and ambiguous signage making it impossible to know what was "restricted".

Back over to their rep. From what I can remember he then mentioned the helpline number again and reiterated the points about contract entered into, and that it was clear the defendant was liable. Then came an interesting part. He referred to the map entered as evidence. He started to state about the position of the tariff boards and point them out as they were colour coded, to which the judge replied that her copy was in black and white only. I then gave her my copy which was coloured coded. I think it was at this stage that the judge also asked the rep whether or not their was signs on the wall at the back of the bays or markings on the ground to define the restricted bays, to which the rep could not answer.

Fast forward to the judgement and to sum up, she said that there was no doubt that the carpark was private land and that a contract had been entered into with regards to parking. But she then went on to say that she was dismissing the case because it was unclear as to where the actual "permit only land or bays " were due to the insufficient signage and/or markings of bays. She even held up their map and said that there were there no indications of any bays or even a mark showing where the defendant's car was parked.

Their rep then asked for leave to appeal to be granted and this was refused as well. The judge said she was satisfied that based on the presented evidence the signage was unclear and therefore no case to answer (my words as I can't remember the exact statement).

The judge didn't criticise the Claimant, but I felt towards the end it was going our way. I feel that she understood our position, both in the issue of the Parking Charge and also in the self representation in court. I really did feel that she had time for us and wanted to hear the case fairly

I did stumble quite a bit and apologised to the judge a couple of times. To her absolute credit she said there was no need and she was ,I felt, very understanding.

We didn't ask for costs. I understand that as a lay representative I can't be paid and my daughter wasn't working until later so she didn't incur any costs as such.

One thing they did was jack up their claim for costs. when the initial claim came through it was for around £250. By this morning it had magically jacked itself upto nearly £500. They just can't help themselves can they? Continually adding more on at every stage. I definitely would have argued that one had we lost.

I would urge anyone to go to court to fight these charges. I felt that our judge was very accommodating. i'd like to think that they have the measure of these firms and are more than willing to listen to your arguments, rather than just take what these charlatans say is the law.

So there we have it. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

Thanks everyone.

Coupon-mad

Very well done.

I know the feeling. It's nerve-wracking despite the preparation. But it sounds like you played it very well.

HalfTheWorldAway

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862959#Comment_81862959

Thank You. Don't plan on going through it again, but if I had to then I'd feel a lot more confident. Thanks in no small part to this place.

Cheers 👍️