Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 5th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    • 90Posts
    • 63Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    Six year old ticket 5th Feb 18 at 6:19 PM
    About a week ago I received a claim form telling me I was about to be taken to court for a ticket I allegedly received 6 years ago., and that 262 is payable by me.This was the first knowledge I have of this and have no recollection of it even happening.
    Over the last week I have scoured the internet and have read lots of advice I believe Im more limited as to what I can do because Excel who operate the car park are not a member of the BPA?
    I have also been to the Citizens advice bureau who I believe said that I was limited as to what I can do because court proceedings are already in the pipeline.
    I am quite frantic as I cannot pay this amount and even this morning as I was again searching on this site and various others, I received a letter from BW Legal who represent Excel to say I will be going to court.
    I rang BW legal to request the evidence and they have instructed me to contest the claim due to having no knowledge previously, and also to request the evidence myself.
    I think the most likely scenario is that the car may have been driven in and straight back out without parking as very few people use this particular car park as it is widely known in the area for its unfair practices.
    I have written the letter and sent it today, but is there anything else I should have done in order to get this turned around?
    The letter was worded as follows
    'I received a claim form from Northampton Courts approx a week ago, stating that I was being taken to court for an alleged parking offence. This is the first knowledge I have of this as the parking ticket was nearly six years old. There is an issue with postal services as there is a house nearby which has practically an identical address but, having scoured the internet for advice on this matter, I understand that there should have been many steps prior to this action, and I fail to believe that all correspondence would have gone astray. I request that you send me the evidence that you hold which has led you to believe a parking offence has been committed, without which this issue cannot go forward. Please send me the necessary evidence. Thank you'
    The date of the ticket was 12th Feb 2012, so actually just under six years.
    Last edited by youdontsay; 05-02-2018 at 10:32 PM. Reason: Wording error
Page 10
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 5th Jul 18, 5:51 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    No I didnt admit to parking I said that I knew it wouldnt have been myself as the car park in question has such a bad reputation for chasing after people for varied reasons and slapping these high fines on them that, like most people I refuse to park there. I pointed out that it was at a time when 'keeper liability' didnt stand and that I didnt know who the driver was, that the car was insured for people other than myself and that I wasnt prepared to even guess who might be driving on the day in question, especially that it was so long ago.
    He just focused on how long ago it was and that was the reduction in the final figure, having removed the interest etc, and admin fees
    • waamo
    • By waamo 5th Jul 18, 5:53 PM
    • 3,641 Posts
    • 4,803 Thanks
    waamo
    It sounds like he was making it up as he went along. That's not unknown is the county court.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jul 18, 6:07 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,608 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You might want to appeal that decision. He erred in law, you could not be held liable if you were not the driver.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 5th Jul 18, 8:54 PM
    • 1,103 Posts
    • 2,121 Thanks
    Johnersh
    If the court makes a finding of fact that the o/p is the driver, on balance of probabilities, then he most certainly can be held accountable for the contractual charges.

    Not admitting being the driver may not be good enough if C's suggestion that D was driving is not displaced or the o/p not believed.

    I don't think it necessarily means a judge has made an error - s/he's entitled to make a finding. It could of course be wrong and adopt a wrong premise, but I don't think it follows that it's immediately appealable.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jul 18, 9:16 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,608 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Agree, but the OP said:
    I said that I knew it wouldnt have been myself as the car park in question has such a bad reputation for chasing after people for varied reasons and slapping these high fines on them that, like most people I refuse to park there.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 5th Jul 18, 10:24 PM
    • 1,103 Posts
    • 2,121 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I agree that was his evidence. But the judge might have thought "well he would say that." That was really my point in a rather more verbose fashion!

    That's the inherent difficulty with witness testimony and subjective assessments of witnesses by the court (many great minds have expended rainforests on the point).

    The judgment should make clear if the court finds that the o/p was driving and why. It's hard to tell if that happened from the account, helpful though it is.

    This is of course the litigation risk that never goes away even with apparently decent cases. So long as everyone is mindful of the risk of the unpredictable, then it's possible to reconcile a few odd decisions.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Jul 18, 4:23 AM
    • 2,736 Posts
    • 4,732 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    All Pre-POFA / "Keeper not driving and driver not identified" runs a risk. The risk is as Johnersh says is twofold

    1. The D has left the door open for a judge to make a decision on BoP and
    2. Given the sheer number of people a judge sees they do get jaundiced and sometimes think "well she would say that."

    A possible solution is to opt for the standard NCND - neither confirm nor deny - and then add that on BoP it was someone else as ..... [insert the checks that have been done to support the statement.]

    Courts want certainty and some evidence that the Keeper wasn't driving is better than none.

    If you leave items for a judge to decide, you run the risk the decision will go against you.
    About me: Capricorn. Likes: Tight defences, the tighter the better. Lucidity. Dislikes: Loquaciousness and magic words. WLTM: Someone with the facts, a private income and their own copy of the White Book.
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 6th Jul 18, 7:50 AM
    • 90 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    Im just pondering how to proceed with this. What would be the procedure if I decided to appeal? And would I have the same judge? He talked about what happens in Cardiff, where he lives, quite a lot and the fact that people there are happy to have these car park agencies doing their thing there as locals get irate about visitors to the area parking in 'their' spaces.
    A person in the courts mentioned that many of the judges would have thrown it out of court. I probably would have preferred not to hear that, but it was interesting observations by someone who sees the court process day in, day out!
    Its the luck of the draw I suppose as to who you get to make the decision at this stage
    Last edited by youdontsay; 06-07-2018 at 8:04 AM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Jul 18, 8:03 AM
    • 2,736 Posts
    • 4,732 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    He talked about what happens in Cardiff, where he lives,
    So you were on the Welsh Circuit? Was this Blackwood?

    Some of the Welsh courts e.g. Swansea are PPC friendly so it might explain the outcome.
    About me: Capricorn. Likes: Tight defences, the tighter the better. Lucidity. Dislikes: Loquaciousness and magic words. WLTM: Someone with the facts, a private income and their own copy of the White Book.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Jul 18, 9:13 AM
    • 18,352 Posts
    • 29,042 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    IIRC, there was a Swansea (?) Judge who found against a defendant, basing some of his judgment on the fact his daughter lived in a similar residential complex and had parking difficulties.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Jul 18, 11:45 AM
    • 9,696 Posts
    • 9,528 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is of course the litigation risk that never goes away even with apparently decent cases.

    That s all very well, but when even Spreme court Judges disagree with each other, but what remedy has TMOTCO when a lone judge makes a dodgy decision?

    When my claim for unreasonable behavioural costs was denied recently, (wrongly in my opinion), Bargepole told me that although I could appeal, I would need a transcript of the case, and pay a fee of 200. For the amount I was claiming, it was not worthwhile.

    If I am treated thusly, what chance does a less confident person have?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jul 18, 1:28 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,608 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    IIRC, there was a Swansea (?) Judge who found against a defendant, basing some of his judgment on the fact his daughter lived in a similar residential complex and had parking difficulties.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Yes, when I read the below, I thought ''I bet it's him''. LOC123 might know who he is.

    And would I have the same judge? He talked about what happens in Cardiff, where he lives, quite a lot and the fact that people there are happy to have these car park agencies doing their thing there as locals get irate about visitors to the area parking in 'their' spaces.
    I would appeal this one, even on the BOP, it was not you, and you said so:
    I pointed out that it was at a time when 'keeper liability' didnt stand and that I didnt know who the driver was, that the car was insured for people other than myself
    Even two insured drivers makes it 50/50. Three insured drivers, even less likely to be you.

    If ever we see an error in law it's this type of case and that Judge is overdue a boot up the bum.

    If you are thinking of appealing, don't pay. Contact the court (or wait for others to advise).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-07-2018 at 1:31 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 6th Jul 18, 8:26 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Yes it was Blackwood Who shot JR if thats any help? There were a lot of things said such as that I dont own the car park, the landowner does and its down to us to read everything the signs tell us regarding the contract we are entering into.
    When I pointed out the Martin Cutts article and the fact that many MPs were standing against the practise, he didnt really want to know.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Jul 18, 12:36 AM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,608 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Think about your options over the weekend. The Judge does deserve an appeal against him and this decision is ludicrous as you appear to have said enough to make it clear on the BOP that you were not the liable party. And there is no presumption nor any applicable law that could hold you liable, pre-POFA, for the actions of another driver.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jkdd77
    • By jkdd77 7th Jul 18, 10:24 AM
    • 261 Posts
    • 340 Thanks
    jkdd77
    I agree with Coupon-mad; this case desperately needs to be appealed, and an appeal would have excellent chances of success.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant.

    I simply do not agree that, in a case where a claimant puts forward no evidence at all to support their contention that the defendant was driving, merely a bare assertion/ suggestion, and the defendant puts forward repeated and consistent evidence, in witness statements, and in open court, made under penalty of perjury that they were definitely not driving, there are sufficient grounds for a judge to find as fact that the claimant has discharged their burden of showing that defendant was driving.

    Edit (9/7/18)- Furthermore, I do not agree that, in such a case, there are valid grounds for an fair and objective judge to hold that the defendant's evidence is "dishonest" or "disingenuous". Insofar as there is any lack of certainty in the evidence put forward by the defendant, it is a natural consequence of the passage of time, caused by the PPC's cynical decision to delay bringing the claim for six years. Ironically, if the OP had been able to remember the identity of the driver, it would have been safe to name him/ her in court, since the PPC's claim against the driver would be statute-barred.

    If there were sufficient grounds to decide that an RK was driving based on the bare suggestion of the claimant, there would have been no need for Parliament to introduce 'RK liability' for post October 2012 parking events.

    The judge essentially found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant lied in court under penalty of perjury, and I would suggest there was insufficient evidence for a properly directed judge acting in good faith to come to that conclusion.

    In this particular case, the finding of fact is especially odious and unjust because the deliberate and cynical decision of the PPC to delay bringing a claim for six years likely denied the defendant access to additional evidence (such as witnesses) that would have proven beyond all doubt that he/ she was no driving.

    An appeal would not be held at Blackwood (a court notoriously biased in favour of PPCs) but rather in a different court before an circuit judge, one who would, with luck, be open-minded and impartial. The grounds for appeal would be that the decision of the lower court was wrong (c.f. Rule 52.21(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that it was unjust (3)(b) in that the judge acted inappropriately in pre-judging the case and in refusing to properly consider the evidence of the defendant.

    However, the first step would be to apply to a circuit judge for leave to appeal (assuming such leave was not granted by the district judge), and it is virtually certain that the OP would need to pay both for this 'leave-to-appeal hearing', and for the transcript of the case.

    Making such an application for leave to appeal would not stay the original judgment, nor prevent enforcement of the judgment if not paid.

    Therefore, in making the application for leave to appeal, the OP should also request that enforcement be stayed pending the appeal hearing.

    If the request for stay is denied, or is not heard before the deadline to pay, the OP may be left with no choice but to pay or risk enforcement action. However, if he/she wins his/ her appeal, as is likely, the PPC will be ordered to repay this sum.
    Last edited by jkdd77; 09-07-2018 at 9:50 AM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Jul 18, 10:46 AM
    • 9,696 Posts
    • 9,528 Thanks
    The Deep
    Is that it, no sanction against the judge? If this were to be overturned he should, at the very least, have all subsequent decisions reviewed.

    If I were in OP's shoes I would do my upmost to make life very difficult for him
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • thetriggerhappypwner
    • By thetriggerhappypwner 9th Jul 18, 3:41 AM
    • 221 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    thetriggerhappypwner
    Not sure if this has been said before but...

    If this claim is more than a year old, in this case SIX, would it not be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980?

    I mean honestly, what possibility of success do they have?
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 9th Jul 18, 7:52 AM
    • 2,005 Posts
    • 2,768 Thanks
    nigelbb
    Not sure if this has been said before but...

    If this claim is more than a year old, in this case SIX, would it not be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980?

    I mean honestly, what possibility of success do they have?
    Originally posted by thetriggerhappypwner
    The claim was issued one week within the six years that are available to pursue a civil debt sodas not statute barred.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,007Posts Today

8,404Users online

Martin's Twitter