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

[lamma]

Come on .. this is a game to which presently every case results in a win for the PPC (Excel parking put aside, but I asked the question earlier if anyone knows the FACTS of the case or only what they have read in the quality local paper .. oh and the daily mail ... and the silence answered my question)

 

beg to differ - have you forgotten Oldham already. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county-4.html same tune played in that thread. different result.

[Guest courtupdater]

Always ends up the same on these threads - [CPS troll] the following has happened... [Rest of us]: prove it. [CPS troll]: sorry I cannot, trust me [i'm a PPC [EDIT]]. And on the game goes.

 

It is a game .. come on we all know that.

 

Some tickets are issued because people take a chance, dont read the signs that are there and get a parking ticket/invoice/charge .. whatever

 

They can (1) accept bad luck (2) Ignore it (3) Deal with it ... If they ignore it, it goes to court .. some will win, some will lose .. when they lose its expensive .. its a gamble people take ... 50/50 .. rolling the dice.

 

Lighten up .. Its nothing personal, just business

[Genepool1]

Because the case is ONGOING ..... no one lost anything - a new hearing has been set .. after that I am sure it will be posted on here.

 

No a filed defence is NOT a public document in a small claims hearing, where you get this from I do not know !!!

 

If a person, not party to the claim wishes to see the documentation they need to make an application (and pay the fee) to the court stating the reasons why and a judge will decide.

 

What is this person going on about? We asked to see the defence in the Portsmouth case he referred to yesterday. Who mentioned the Oldham case? I am getting the impression that some of the law book pages have fallen out with this one.

[Guest courtupdater]

beg to differ - have you forgotten Oldham already. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county-4.html same tune played in that thread. different result.

 

Where am I looking at in there ...

That case is STILL ongoing ... a new fully detailed particulars of claim was submitted - the defendant (from what I understand) sent in a new amended defence ... basically saying the same thing and demaning it does not get to a hearing.

 

The court looked at the revised particulars of claim, the amended defence and a hearing date has been set .. so still ongoing.

[Guest courtupdater]

What is this person going on about? We asked to see the defence in the Portsmouth case he referred to yesterday. Who mentioned the Oldham case? I am getting the impression that some of the law book pages have fallen out with this one.

 

Is a filed defence not a public document available to anyone who requests it at the court? Where is the prejudice? This is beginning to sound like "the dog ate my homework" territory (if I recall correctly the last CPS troll was unable to post the transcript of the case they lost in Olham due to some equally spurious reason). What I want to know is - if this is the level of their (lack of) legal expertise how did the defendant lose. Suggests he may not have turned up fore the hearing and CPS had a free run that even they could not lose (another question that has suspiciously not been answered).

 

He did ... the response was to Fridgdoor !!! Getting it now ???

[Genepool1]

If they ignore it, it goes to court .. some will win, some will lose

 

That's new for me anyway. I have never before heard a PPC admit that they lose cases. Are you sure you are connected with Perky/Scotty at all? Because you have just departed from his hymn sheet (we win every case, bluster, bluster, bluster).Answer me this one simple question if you would: did the defendant turn up in person at the hearing? Or is there some reason preventing you from revealing that as well?

[Michael Browne]

All of you may be interested in this request:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/158339-radio-4-debate-legal.html#post1693584

[Guest Ting]

but I asked the question earlier if anyone knows the FACTS of the case or only what they have read in the quality local paper .. oh and the daily mail ... and the silence answered my question)

 

Oooooh, 'I've got a csecret'. 'What is it?'

 

'I'm not telling'. 'Oh go on!'.

 

'Nope'

 

- and you wonder why you used to get [edit].

-

Edited September 3, 2008 by GuidoT
Please do not post personal insults

[GuidoT]

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 Real Name]

I have a transcript of the HEARING and JUDGEMENT - So I know exactly why it failed.

 

Thats why I want to know if anyone else has any facts rather than the drivel in the local news & daily mail.

You mean you have an opinion as to how it failed. How about sharing?

[Guest courtupdater]

Oooooh, 'I've got a csecret'. 'What is it?'

 

'I'm not telling'. 'Oh go on!'.

 

'Nope'

 

- and you wonder why you used to get [edit].

-

 

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the topic

Edited September 3, 2008 by GuidoT
As post 133 above

[Genepool1]

The court looked at the revised particulars of claim, the amended defence and a hearing date has been set .. so still ongoing.

 

When is the hearing date? I wouldn't mind going along to that. Or are you prevented from telling us that as well?

[Al27]

Why don't you up the charges now? Why not make it £200?

 

And why not just take everyone to court after one or two letters?

 

You're a business. You're in it for profit. It's not a game to you, it's earning a living (albeit immorally).

 

You could take 5, 10, 15 people to court every week (since you're now likely to win apparently) and reap in the profits.

 

So why don't you? Give us names of who you could take to court tomorrow.

 

Or, give us a valid reason why you won't? Something about your case smells very fishy. You won't give us any facts.

 

Two words - stool pigeon.

[JonCris]

Now we know this bunch are abusing the Oldham court system by having another go after 1st losing

[Guest courtupdater]

You mean you have an opinion as to how it failed. How about sharing?

 

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:

[JonCris]

So basically no proper or considered defence was even offered which it is & has been n the past by pepipoo & cag members

 

Absolutely meaningless

 

Only a successful judgment where substantive claims & defences are submitted are worth arguing about

[JonCris]

OH & we have gone from not being able to post details to posting details. This gets funnier by the minute

[Genepool1]

Courtupdater will not despite repeated requests confirm that the defendant turned up in person to this case CPS supposedly won against the might of pepipoo/CAG. Nor will he release the defence in that case when there is no impediment to him doing so. I am smelling a fairly big rat now. Nor will he confirm the date of the Oldham hearing. I will contact the court and get that and post it here. Might be a nice day out.

[jasmin2008]

Indeedy!

[Guest courtupdater]

Actually you are again wrong.

 

For a FULL debate you would need:

 

The claim, The defence, the claimants evidence bundle, the defendants evidence bundle, the hearing transcript and the judgement transcript ..

 

Then you could have a debate about it ...

 

At the minute, everything I say you wont beleive ... so why ask me.

 

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.

 

The people who assisted with the defence are no where to be seen, I bet when they win one (and on the law of averages they will eventually) you can bet they will be singing to the hills.

[JonCris]

ditto

[Guest courtupdater]

Indeedy!

 

Small claims are heard in Chambers .. you have to ask for permission to be present if you're not party to a claim.

[My Real Name]

Nope ..I have the REAL thing

The transcript of the judgment is incomplete.

 

I have a transcript of the HEARING and JUDGEMENT

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

So I know exactly why it failed.So I know exactly why it failed.

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.

[My Real Name]

For a FULL debate you would need:

Candour and honesty?

[Genepool1]

so why ask me.

 

We had come to that conclusion ourselves. It's a bit like a re-run of Michael Howard on Newsnight. "Did the defendant turn up?" ... "the case was well argued"... "yes but did the defendant turn up" ... "the judge considered all the points", "did the defendant turn up?" "the sandwiches and cordial were very good indeed". etc. etc.