URGENT Parking firm taking me to court and demanding my insurance docs? WHAT!?????

[Guest Ting]

Please do not let the thread degenerate into a tirade of personal abuse, if you are unable to be civil then please do not post.

 

My apologies. No problem at all with the edit - entirely justified.

 

It did seem to work though and move it on ! LOL.

 

Thanks.

[Guest courtupdater]

The transcript of the judgment is incomplete.

 

Yes - Or, at least, you have partial transcripts, that leave plenty to the imagination.

No - You have an opinion, which you are yet to share. This is the point of your post, re: Excel, is it not? That you "know" why Excel failed.

 

So far you have only demonstrated that you have access to the documents.

 

JESUS !!!

 

Here is the last page of the HEARING .. The last page of the judgement is below:

 

I have both of them, in full ... and before you ask ... NO I wont post them .. I am just VERY interested as this seems to be the only documented case where a PPC lost and people are all too quick to refer others to it ... I want to know why they keep referring people to it.

 

SURELY there must be another person out there who has the FACTS, or does everyone just blindly point to something in the newspaper saying 'hey, look at this .. so it will be the same for you' without knowing exactly why it was lost !!!

 

MR ATWOOD: I accept that, sir.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: You can only, in submissions you can only draw to my attention the relevant points that have come out of the evidence.

MR ATWOOD: The point being that, if we did have an issue with the system at that time, it would not have resulted in Miss Hetherington-Jakeman actually being issued a parking charge notice. And at no point has Miss Hetherington-Jakeman conceded that she did in fact enter the site on multiple occasions, which would have flagged this issue as a matter ----

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: You never asked her.

MR ATWOOD: I did, sir. I asked her whether or not she had entered and left site on multiple occasions. At no point ----

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I am sorry, that is not my recollection at all. Cross-examination ... Two hours parking, you went on about that for a long time. Made representations by email. Identified the football ground car park and this one are the same car park. "How did you know you only stayed for two hours?" "I looked at my watch." You never asked her.

MR ATWOOD: I accept that point, sir.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Mr Lee, is that an accurate record as far as you are concerned?

MR LEE: Sir, yes.

MR ATWOOD: But I would like to state that at no point within any of Miss Hetherington-Jakeman's statements or submissions did she stipulate that she had entered on multiple occasions within her claims or representation.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I do not think that is right either. Mr Lee, you may be able to help me, but I thought I had read somewhere that she said that she came backwards and forwards on some occasions?

MR LEE: You are quite right, sir. Visits to Comet and Currys.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: A digital camera. It is paragraph 16. "I do not accept that at any time I parked for more than two hours. I explained that on one occasion I may have made multiple visits to the car park." So, I am sorry, it is not correct to say she did not say it. She did say it and you did not ask her about it.

MR ATWOOD: Sir. And that in, a final point, we do have the contractual terms displayed on entrance to the car park and within the car park, advising motorists that the car park is two hours maximum stay and any motorist exceeding that stay is subject to a parking charge notice.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Mr Atwood, thank you for that. Can I first of all thank both Mr Lee and Mr Atwood for their assistance in this matter. I would also like to thank Mrs Price and Miss Hetherington-Jakeman for helping me in giving clear evidence.

(For JUDGMENT, see separate transcript)

--------------------------------------------------------

 

25. Going back to Vine, what is interesting is that if one reads the judgment, Roch LJ, having decided that the appellant had not seen the signs and that therefore the recorder was in error, said this:

"The appellant is entitled to the return of the £108.43, or alternatively that sum by way of damages.

This finding renders it unnecessary for this court to consider whether the charge that the respondents were levying was or was not exorbitant."

It seems to me that the Court of Appeal were making it clear that they were not saying that £105 was an appropriate figure, (or £108 because there was a £3 charge for using a credit card.) They were not saying that at all and, if that is what Excel think it says, as appeared to be advanced by Mr Atwood then they are sadly mistaken. It is not authority for the proposition that £105 is a reasonable fee. It is clear that the Court of Appeal declined to say such a sum was reasonable or that it was not reasonable.

The claim is dismissed. Anything else, Mr Lee?

MR LEE: No, sir.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Thank you. Mr Atwood, I should have asked you as well.

MR ATWOOD: No, sir.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Thank you very much.

--------------------------------------------------------

[battyboomboom]

Actually you are again wrong.

I posted a factual report, then went into more detail with a few lines of what was presented ... from that it was concluded it was a bad defence as the person lost.

 

Eh? From posting hardly anything we're meant to conclude it was a bad defence??? Get a grip mate, the only conclusion I can come to is that you're irratating git of a troll, winding us up, and making spurious claims many of which you haven't backed up - and that's a factual report from me...

[GuidoT]

Nope ..I have the REAL thing .. here is the first 2 pages of the JUDGEMENT: Below that the first 2 pages of the HEARING !!!!

 

 

Case No. 7SE15729

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

AT MANSFIELD

 

 

Mansfield County Court.

 

 

 

18th March, 2008

 

 

 

 

B e f o r e :

 

 

 

DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL WALL

 

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

 

 

Claimant

 

 

- and -

 

 

 

 

D.V. HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN

 

 

Defendant

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

MR ATWOOD appeared on behalf of the claimant.

 

 

 

MR LEE appeared on behalf of the defendant.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Transcribed by :

 

 

JOHN LARKING VERBATIM REPORTERS

 

 

Suite 91 Temple Chambers

 

 

3 - 7 Temple Avenue

 

 

London EC4Y OHP

 

 

Telephone : 020 7404 7464

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

(As Approved)

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

6,258 Words / 87 Folios

 

 

 

18th March, 2008

 

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE:

 

1. So far as this is concerned, I do not intend to reiterate at any length the evidence that I have heard. It is in accordance largely with the statements that have been filed. I will deal with the evidence further below, but let me deal with the substance of the case first.

2. It is asserted by the claimants - of course, I remind myself that the burden of proof is on the claimants in these cases; the claimants are the ones who have to satisfy me on the balance of probability that they can make out their case - but it is asserted by the claimants that this defendant parked her vehicle at Portland retail park on three separate occasions; on 9th September 2006, on 7th October 2006 and on 4th November 2006. Miss Hetherington-Jakeman quite honestly tells me in her evidence that she cannot remember what days she parked there. She was quite honest and told me that she has used that car park. She does not use it, she said, on a frequent basis but she does use it. She is not able in those circumstances to deny that she used her car on those particular occasions. However, the claimants go on to say that she exceeded the two hour timeframe that was allowed. The two hour timeframe is clearly marked, and I am satisfied that it is clearly marked and in fact Miss Hetherington-Jakeman to her credit accepts that she knew this anyway, it is clearly marked and there is no argument about that. It says, "Welcome to the Portland retail shoppers' car park. Two hour maximum stay, no return within one hour." It clearly says that and this lady understood that she was not supposed to be there for more than two hours. It is the claimants' case that on each of those three occasions she was there for more than two hours and they say, therefore, subsequently they sent out parking charge notices which required payment of a set sum because of a breach of that timeframe. With regard to the parking charge notices there has been some difficulty in the sense that I am told by the claimants that some of the notices appear to have been lost in the post.

 

3. The procedure that should be followed - and I accept this is what normally happens - is that a parking charge notice is sent out to the person whose vehicle has been identified (the registered keeper of that vehicle). There will inevitably, because of the way the system was run, that is an automated system, with numberplate recognition rather than a little man in a peaked cap going round sticking things on people's windows, which is the old-fashioned way of doing it, although I suspect an incredibly expensive way of doing it, in this particular system that is used, the automatic recognition, obviously there is a delay in sending something out because all that the claimants originally have is a numberplate. They have therefore to approach the DVLA and obtain, as one can if they are able to satisfy the DVLA that they have a right to have this information, details of who the registered keeper is.

 

4. That is what happened here. What would normally happen is that the registered keeper would therefore, within a relatively short time, and we are talking of a few weeks, the registered keeper receives the parking charge notice and has an opportunity of paying it and, if they pay within so many days, they get a reduced and discounted figure. If they paid within seven days it was £40, if they paid within 14 days it was £60. Unfortunately in this case, the situation was that these notices appear to have got lost in

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Case No. 7SE15729

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

AT MANSFIELD

 

Mansfield County Court.

 

18th March, 2008

 

 

B e f o r e :

 

DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL WALL

 

-------------------------

 

 

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

 

Claimant

- and -

 

 

D.V. HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN

 

Defendant

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

MR ATWOOD appeared on behalf of the claimant.

 

MR LEE appeared on behalf of the defendant.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Transcribed by :

JOHN LARKING VERBATIM REPORTERS

Suite 91 Temple Chambers

3 - 7 Temple Avenue

London EC4Y OHP

Telephone : 020 7404 7464

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

F U L L P R O C E E D I N G S

 

(Excluding JUDGMENT)

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

12,157 words/169 folios

 

 

18th March, 2008

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Come in and sit down. We will deal with the preliminary issue: the press. Mr Douglas is a member of the press and he wants to sit in during this hearing. Mr Lee, I understand that you have no objection to it?

 

MR LEE: No, sir.

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I do not know whether it is Mr Atwood or Miss Price presenting this case, but whoever is, I am told that there is a concern. Is that right?

 

MR ATWOOD: That's correct, sir.

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Why should I not allow it?

 

MR ATWOOD: The only reason for objection, sir, is that information that we will be presenting during this case may be construed as confidential and we would not want that published.

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: What confidential information?

 

MR ATWOOD: Contractual agreements with our clients, sir.

 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I am not interested in the contractual agreements, am I? This is a straightforward argument, is it not? The argument is whether there is a contract or not. I think that Mr Lee may have some difficulties on that, but he is going to say it is not a contract, but then the second argument is simply this, is it not, gentleman: that, firstly, this lady says that she is not in breach of a contract for two reasons - one, the notice that she exhibits in her statement does not actually say that you have to pay this sum of money if you are parked for in excess of two hours and, therefore, it is not recoverable anyway; secondly, she does not accept that she parked for more than two hours; and, thirdly, I think the point that is going to be made is that, even if this is a case where I am satisfied she has parked in excess of two hours and the notice should be read in the way that you are going to presumably suggest I should read it, it still amounts in law to a penalty because it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - it is nothing more than an attempt to, to use the vernacular, to frighten people, to make sure that they do or do not do something, and penalties are not recoverable. Whatever one thinks of that, that is the position and I am not in a position to overrule the House of Lords by a long chalk. None of that, as far as I can see, would involve anything to do with your contractual arrangements with anyone. So, I ask the question - well, there is one other point that I should mention, actually, that I suppose thinking about it might possibly be relevant. It is not mentioned in the skeleton argument, because I do not think Mr Lee is going to rely on this particularly. There is a letter from Knight Frank which says, and I have got it marked anyway but I shall paraphrase it - there is a letter from Mr Toulson at Knight Frank saying, to one of the shopkeepers, that all tickets issued between September and December 2006, of which these tickets fall into that category, will be withdrawn. That is what he says, and Knight Frank, I suppose, if one is looking at contractual positions, Knight Frank are effectively the agents for the owners and therefore act on behalf of the owners and therefore they have given instructions. I am not sure that that is an instruction that they can actually give, but that is the instruction they have given. I suppose to the extent that that might be queried, that might be contractual, but that is not anything that is confidential; that is just:

 

Could you upload a PDF of this, or place a link to where it is originally posted please.

[battyboomboom]

Guido, cut that quote down to size [edited]

 

Preferably to this:

 

it still amounts in law to a penalty because it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - it is nothing more than an attempt to, to use the vernacular, to frighten people, to make sure that they do or do not do something, and penalties are not recoverable. Whatever one thinks of that, that is the position and I am not in a position to overrule the House of Lords by a long chalk.

 

Edited September 3, 2008 by jonni2bad

[My Real Name]

exactly why it was lost !!!

Actually, let me save the rest of us from your protestations.

 

From what I gather, the PPC did issued the invoice outwith it's own terms and conditions.

 

The defendant did not overstay the 2 hours, and the invoice was sent out in error.

 

Yet the PPC insisted on going to court?

 

The transcript that you have posted doesn't even appear to be the one being referred to in the Portland Retail Park Action Group case, but a separate incident altogether.

 

But that's just my opinion - How about hearing yours?

Edited September 3, 2008 by My Real Name
markup

[Guest courtupdater]

Guido, cut that quote down to size [edited]

 

Preferably to this:

 

 

 

[/font][/font]

 

That is on the 1st page of the hearing .. the judge was just explaning what he was being asked to decide upon ... the statement above was the defendants claim NOT the judges opinion.

Edited September 3, 2008 by jonni2bad
quoted text

[fridgedoor]

This whole Excel thing looks like at attempt to deflect attention from the other questions the CPS troll has been asked. Are we to take it from the now deafening silence that the defendant did not even turn up in Portsmouth, yet CPS have the cheek to present the the case as a "win"?

[angela-27]

i am dead confused what is going on here

 

how do we know this case isn't just made up

[Genepool1]

It's looking more and more like either the case is a total set up entirely or more likely the defendant did not show up at all to the hearing. I will be able to confirm one way or the other tomorrow. If it is the case that it was a no show and perky is crowing about a "victory" then there are no words to describe how deranged and removed from normal society these individuals are. Clearly pepipoo/CAG are hurting Perky's Trollers badly if they have to stoop to this level of fantasy to sustain their disreputable business.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Genepool1

[Bookworm]

Clearly pepipoo/CAG are hurting bad if they have to stoop to this level of fantasy to sustain their disreputable business.

Just wanted to clarify that by "they", you mean the PPCs, NOT CAG/Pepipoo?

[Genepool1]

Just wanted to clarify that by "they", you mean the PPCs, NOT CAG/Pepipoo?

 

have now amended it but boy you're sharp Bookworm!

[Al27]

This is like waiting for the Bigfoot in the freezer to defrost.

 

What's the betting we come across a big rubber suit?

[WAVE_131]

Hello, I'm new here so if I make a few mistakes I hope you will bear with me.

 

The private clamping / parking firms say they are doing their job to "protect" their clients from "illegal" parking. It is clear from many posts that this involves booking drivers who park on large car parks when the premises to which they are attatched are closed.

 

So why do these firms not secure the car parks? Because they WANT people to park there in order to make money by booking them! In short the private firms act as agent provoceteurs which is unlawful.

 

I can imagine the exchange in court "Why did you not secure the car park if you did not want it used?" answer...err...err...err...

 

See my post on another thread regarding National Clamps having their "immobilising service" in the British Virgin Islands, where they will of course pay tax on cash earned in the UK.

 

As a disabled driver I was booked by my local authority who thought I was misusing my blue badge. A request to the council for information revealed that 4% of able bodied drivers who were booked successfully appealed against their booking, but a staggering 44% of disabled successfully appealed ie were wrongly booked. It is against the law to discriminate against the disabled, lets find out if they are targetted and then report the clampers.

 

The point I am making is that these cowboy clampers are highly likely to be in breach of much legislation, eg they must be registered and badged, so don't just wait for them to do something before responding to their actions, go after them first!

[fridgedoor]

This is like waiting for the Bigfoot in the freezer to defrost.

 

What's the betting we come across a big rubber suit?

 

Here's a new list of excuses for the CPS troll to use tomorrow when challenged as to why we are still waiting for answers:It was the wrong type of court/case/judge ...I managed to step out at the crucial time ...I suffered a sudden but temporary bout of blindness and deafness and therefore cannot confirm whether the defendant was there ...I was too busy chatting to the reporters and snappers I had lined up to notice if the defendant was there ...The defendant was in attendance but had chosen to make himself invisible ...The dog ate the transcript ...The dog ate the piece of paper with the hearing date on it ...The dog ate the defendant ...

[Guest Ting]

I'm not clear why this whole debacle has started when he's quoted a case that concerned a Mrs Simpkins sueing a major retailer for a faulty fridge freezer that they refused to replace.

How did it get on here?

-

[gwc1000]

I had to chuckle when reading CPS's website:

"A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue"

Considering that perky seems to be obsessed with them, and the lengths he goes to obtaining them (like driving from Wolverhampton to Portsmouth) I would have thought in his mind they are a more likely a major issue.

[lamma]

claiming "illegal parking" is rubbish. to be illegal it has to be against criminal law. It isn't.

[joe1965]

I'm not clear why this whole debacle has started when he's quoted a case that concerned a Mrs Simpkins sueing a major retailer for a faulty fridge freezer that they refused to replace.

How did it get on here?

-

It's perky and his cohorts thinking they are clever and that they can deceive people on here with their lies and bully tactics. It may work on the old and gullable but it wont work on here!

[Genepool1]

It is very weird how Perky and his successor Scotty are so obsessed with this board and pepipoo and the "experts" they claim are out to get them. It is their unsavoury actions over many months that have placed them in the firing line in the first place. Clearly there is not a cool (or wise) head in the place. And running around the country winning un/poorly defended defended cases (where I guess it would help if the defendant happened not to put in an appearance) to try to prove a point to consumer affairs sites is a laughable business. I don't think the PPC community in general will be too worried about competition from these jokers as long as the obsessions continue.