Napier court case.

[peanutsallergy]

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/news/detail.php?Our-client-Napier-Parking-wins-in-Court-15

 

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/cms/uploads/judgement.pdf

 

 

anyone know anything about this one?

 

It was about a year ago, but just re-surfaced on a different forum.

[postggj]

Interesting reading the court transcript

 

Sems the judge said pay within 14 days and you will not get a judgement against you

 

Call me cynical

 

But is it not 28 days to pay from judgement before a CCJ is registered, THIS SMELLS

 

And where would the claimant get official court recordings/transcripts from, THIS SMELLS

[peanutsallergy]

So you reckon they've forged the transcript, and it's not a real case number they've quoted?

 

Wouldn't that be a criminal offense?

 

I tend to think it's real, but I'd be interested if you can find proof it's not.

[postggj]

May be a real case with some creative licence involved

[peanutsallergy]

So you really think Napier lost, but wrote their own transcript?

 

If you have any proof I'm sure it could be brought to the courts attention. I don't believe they would be making up court documents though.

To be honest, I never even considered that possibility.

[postggj]

That is not a court document for start, it is an implied statement that it came from a county court, i for one do not see any court seal to vouch for its authenticity

 

Why do you make the statement that i think Napier lost when i have not, that is hearsay on your part

 

Why do you make the statement if i have proof that the document might be bogus when i have made no such statement

 

For your information, i am legally trained and i think you are, i am trained to ask leading questions, and you seem very good at it

 

who are you and who do you represent

[postggj]

Still waiting, or is it Actus Reus on your part

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[peanutsallergy]

I'm someone that thinks it's an accurate transcript, taken as it's read, and worthy of discussion for the points raised in it.

Seems a reasonable view on a forum dedicated to parking enforcement.

 

So back on track then?

 

Instead of disputing the validity, down to the points in it then?

[postggj]

I am making no more comment on this until you tell me what your ulterior motives are

 

I have looked at your comments on PPC and you seem to be a supporter of their doctrine,

 

once again

 

who are you and who do you represent

[peanutsallergy]

You can start, post up who you are, what solicitors you work for, and how you got your legal training.

But your offer of no further comment is more than acceptable too.

 

So, back to discussion on the case hopefully.

[postggj]

I work for a National Trade Union in their legal services department

 

I have a BA in law with honors and i am in my third year of my LLB qualification

 

Now who are you and who do you represent

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[peanutsallergy]

So post#9 was a bit of a fail then.

 

I would suggest you need to brush up a bit on what statements you make before you qualify, if you obviously don't mean them.

(BA Hons, then an LLB? mm OU course?)

 

I answered you in post#8, seemed clear enough.

 

Anything useful to add on the actual case, as entertaining as this is, it's not really doing much on the discussion of the fact the judge actually made a few controversial points here, which are worthy of reading, and possibly considering for the future.

[postggj]

So i am studying with the Open University which my employer is paying for, what has that got to do with the questions asked

 

Not all students are 20 years of age

 

Now i have told you who i am

 

Care to reply the curtsey with a response, or is only sarcastic retorts in your vocabulary

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[postggj]

Notice when you talk to certain individuals with facts and logic, after a time their only response is to go on the defence and try and take the argument into a totally different direction.

 

They always try and get the last word in.

 

Looking at this posters previous postings on other PPC threads, it is evident that he supports their views on parking contracts and penalties. When faced to account for those statements, they run away and hide after the usual rhetoric and insults

 

Here ends the lesson for today:-)

 

Don't take anything personal, they are not worth it

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[Old Snowy]

Aside from the waving of particular parts of the anatomy, court transcripts such as this are not sealed by the court and are prepared by a private transcription service - as is set out in the header - from the court recording of the judgment. A party to such a hearing can apply for the transcript but, of course pays for the privilege.

 

The case is not new and has been known for some time. Apart from the hiccough on the part of Judge Perusko with regard to the timescale for payments upon judgment, I see nothing in the document which departs from my knowledge of the case or that would suggest to me that the transcript has been tampered with in any way.

[postggj]

i think that the point is the PPC are making a song and dance over such cases. Be them true or not, county courts do not set precedent. These sort of one off judgements are down to nothing more than judicial interpretation by the judge. In the real world, this one judgement if true is nothing more than a needle in a haystack of court cases and should not be thrown about as case law, when it is not

[SURFBOY]

In my oppinion when PPCs and their DCAs post up these cases on their websites, with words like "told to ignore by online forums" , smacks of desperation.

I feel that "online forums" and their advice is hurting PPCs a lot!

Of course they take the odd cases to court, we know that, of course they get the odd win in court, we know that, they are discussed on these forums.

They bleat about them because they are trying to justyfy their greed. Nothing more.

Nice of you to bring it up peanutsallergy, lets us see just how desperate things are in PPC world!

[postggj]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388582-Roxburghe-Graham-White-lose-Again-in-court

[Old Snowy]

i think that the point is the PPC are making a song and dance over such cases. Be them true or not, county courts do not set precedent. These sort of one off judgements are down to nothing more than judicial interpretation by the judge. In the real world, this one judgement if true is nothing more than a needle in a haystack of court cases and should not be thrown about as case law, when it is not

Indeed. However, it is PPC's and their fellow traveller - DCA's - that have long sought to persuade the otherwise ignorant public that precedent is established. SCC judgments may of course be persuasive but judges have a wide discretion and rarely follow them. And, in any event, the vast majority of cases they bandy around are default judgments.

[Parking Alf]

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/news/detail.php?Our-client-Napier-Parking-wins-in-Court-15

 

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/cms/uploads/judgement.pdf

 

 

anyone know anything about this one?

 

It was about a year ago, but just re-surfaced on a different forum.

 

It seems to me the only defence offered was that the PPC should have allowed the defendant a longer grace period in which to purchase a ticket. The judge also accepted the PPC's case that their charge was a genuine pre-estimate of costs without any explanation as to why.

 

There are a host of other legal issues raised here and over on Pepipoo that have not been presented. This looks like an extremely weak defence and an easy win for the PPC. Although the defendant did manage to get £90 in costs off the PPC.

 

The only significant issue in this case is the judge's acceptance of the PPC's estimate of loss.

[postggj]

I agree that the defence submitted to the court was rather week,

law of contract should have been the main defence and researched before submitting the defence

[peanutsallergy]

It seems to me the only defence offered was that the PPC should have allowed the defendant a longer grace period in which to purchase a ticket. The judge also accepted the PPC's case that their charge was a genuine pre-estimate of costs without any explanation as to why.

 

There are a host of other legal issues raised here and over on Pepipoo that have not been presented. This looks like an extremely weak defence and an easy win for the PPC. Although the defendant did manage to get £90 in costs off the PPC.

 

The only significant issue in this case is the judge's acceptance of the PPC's estimate of loss.

 

Paragraph 11 of the transcript has some information.

 

Seems to be the judge agreed Napier had provided enough detail to let him accept the £80 was reasonable, and was considered "fair and transparent"

 

Still worth including the argument it's a penalty, but it does seem to be in line (or below) with the amount banks charge for their chain letters, and the £50 or more an insurer will charge to change your address on your policy.

[ericsbrother]

If Napier are heralding this as a victory then they wont need to win many before they go bust! If the defendant had argued a decent reason for not paying their charges the judge would have had something to listen to. It is essentially a walkover, BUT Napier did have to pay the defendant's costs for the postponement of an earlier hearing and he should have gone for the jugular with that alone.

Lessons to be learnt by all with this one but will Napier be emboldened to think that the next one will be as easy and try to correct their mistakes regarding barrister's and solicitor's costs?

[Crocdoc]

Genuine pre -estimate of loss does create confusion, for example if a genuine shopper overstays for a period of 10 minutes and the charge is £90.00 this equates to £10.00 per minute. On the other hand if someone actually abuses the car park rules and parks for 24 hours the actual charge reduces to 6.5p a minute.

 

Perhaps we should all park in these areas and p--s off on holiday.