Beavis case law

The_Bald_Eagle

I am representing a relative re a private parking ticket that she got for not entering her VRN in the machine when entering a pub. The parking company are relying on Beavis, and I would dearly love to have access to as many judgments as I can get hold of that rebut the findings of the Supreme court when there is no free parking on offer.

I have looked on here for links to such case law, but can someone here please tell me if there is one thread where I can get access to all such judgments? Much obliged.

Umkomaas

They all ‘rely’ on that. ‘Beavis Supreme Court’ into Google will get you the SC ruling - all 300 pages of it (good luck reading that!). ‘Case Law’ needs to be relevant to the circumstances. If you told us a bit of background, who the parking firm is and which solicitor firm is representing them, we could save you and your ‘client’ a lot of needless chasing around reading (likely many) irrelevant legal cases.

Car1980

Mr Beavis didn't fail to use a tablet in a pub, he overstayed.

As an aside, I bet none of the entrance signs said "you must enter your VRN in the tablet in the pub" did they? If there was one it would have said customer parking only.

The idea from their point of view is to make sure people DON'T use the tablet.

The_Bald_Eagle

It's Smart Parking Ltd and they are pursuing "my client" through DCBL. It's a simple case where if you parked in the pub car park, you needed to register the VRM when going into the bar. The Ts&Cs of parking then were (Smart Parking Ltd have since been thrown out), that there was no free parking period (as was available to Beavis), and that failure to register would result in a charge being payable.

Upon entering the bar and trying to enter the VRM, she was told by bar staff that the machine wasn't working and that they would inform Smart Parking Ltd of the situation. However, it appears that they did not do so and here we are now, with the matter being pursued through the courts by DCBL.

Another point of note is that she has proof of purchase (a bank statement) to support the fact that she entered the pub. Does this help?

Gr1pr

DCB LEGAL, not DCBL !

Are they at the defence stage or the WS stage. ?

DCB LEGAL usually discontinue just before the hearing fee is due, so expect that to happen, because they don't pay for hearings

The_Bald_Eagle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019861#Comment_82019861

We are at the mediation stage. Their Particulars of Claim are rubbish and will have to be amended before we can put in an amended Defence, which will include any relevant case law and our evidence of proof of purchase.

And you are correct that it is DCB Legal Ltd btw. My bad.

Gr1pr

Mediation stage is about a monetary settlement, not the case itself, so advice on the mediation stage is in the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements, you only discuss offers, or make NO OFFER

If i were the defendant in this case, I would say something to the mediator like the following

"Hello, thank you for calling, please tell the claimant that I won't be making any offers and I will be happy to take this matter to a court hearing, thank you and goodbye "

If no monetary settlement is reached, the CNBC in Northampton will transfer the case to the defendants local civil court as defined in the N180

That court will write to DCB LEGAL and to the defendant in a few months time, with directions and 3 deadlines , one of which is the WS plus Exhibits bundle submission deadline, this is where the defendant can talk about faulty machines etc, plus add copies of proof of patronage too, assuming that they don't discontinue beforehand

So that court directions stage is a long way off , so a few months away

There wont be any new POC or defence, it will continue with the already filed submissions

Have a look at the current defence template by member meltof dated 12th April to see what they are currently up against

The defendant can expect an N279 discontinuation document to arrive by email just before the hearing fee is due in a few months time

Ps, Smart Parking never invoked Pofa2012 until 2025 so can only pursue the driver, they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper

Coupon-mad

"rebut the findings of the Supreme court"

No case law rebuts those findings. You can't. And you don't need to. Surely you aren't doing prep for the pointless Mediation call?!

The case is going nowhere and will cost nothing to your friend. There wont be any new POC or defence.

And you don't need to prepare anything (not a single word) for mediation! Phone down after 2 minutes.

Stop wasting headspace on a case that DCB Legal will discontinue before the hearing fee deadline this Summer!

There is a current tsunami of Smart Parking claims. So much so, that I now have copy & paste advice ready:

just click on the username @Meltof

You could have copied their version of a Smart Parking final defence posted on April 12th. Obviously, as they didn't use the POFA, theres no keeper liability possible with Smart, so we hope no response has admitted to driving?


These claims are all the same (none go to hearings) and the sheer numbers of Smart Parking claim threads - about 4 or 5 EVERY DAY here - have driven us regulars a bit mad in April/May with this batch!

Literally read any Smart thread…

Follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread which also covers Mediation.

It'll be discontinued just before the hearing fee falls due in the Autumn/Winter.

Read @Umkomaas'thread of over 850 examples.And counting!