Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dont really think that cuts it.. simply the above only covers your set aside reason.   put the you have evidence you informed the original creditor of your current address on xxx ..some xxx months/years before the ccj.   id also drop the embarrass ed defence bit at the end.   what defence are you offering that you dont owe the money? Simply saying the claimant might not have paperwork is immaterial. The ccj trumps that.  
    • ther thing we need to do is identify the land correctly, so state where exactly it was. If you mean the Tesco/aldi car park  then there is a sign at the entrance but that isnt an offer pf a parking contract with charges fro breaching it so maybe an invitation to teat at best. Cant tell who it is with though so not good for these bandits
    • Hi,   I've been sent a claim form from Hoist finance UK Holdings, after speaking with them I believe it's with Robinson way.   I dont recall ever being sent a letter of claim beforehand, the debt is a Barclaycard and the amount if around £1500.   Speaking to robinson way they are unwilling to negotiate with me and simply told me to return the claim form.    Is there anything I can do to avoid the CCJ, I'm happy to arrange a payment plan with them and certainly would've if a letter of claim was sent.   Thanks 
    • you have to look back a long way to get all the info you need on contract law that covers the contracts offered by the parking co. let us say wha it is if worded properly, it is a unilateral contract, which is basicaly an advertisement of something that by your actions you accept. they are enforceable as such. CARLILL v Carbolic Smake Ball Co is the mainstay on adverts as contracts.   Burden of proof- well that is a 2 way street in this case as they will say that they had lots of signs so you must have read them. we say that they need to be specific to the circumstance of a motorist entering private land in a car so they ahve to be legible and transparent at the point of entry from the public highway or it isnt a proper offer. Get the signage right and the fact that you drive in a manner that would get you nicked by not paying due care and attention wont allow you to claim that you didnt see the signs. the reality is though that the signs are often piddlingly small, hidden or unlit and usually without the necessary planning permissions so thre illegallya dn thus fail to create a contract.   demand for payment  within 14 days at a a time well after the correct NTK/NTD was issued is OK, problem is that many of the original charge notices are duff so no liability exists.   youcnat ask for other people's personal data, only they can. If you were the keeper at the time then it will be you they are chasing but other than that all you can do is get her to name you as the driver ands ee if they want to obey the law and start all over again against you.   Now as the original Northern Parking services were wound up by the govt for being naughty you should look up the original paperwork you still have and see who the creditor was at the time. Also get pictures of the sigange as all of the signs from the Co I have seen fail to mention the new version of the company and that makes the contract offered by the signage void.   so for example the secod letter of calom that is headed Northern Parking Services - no such company, it was wound up and this lot either dont know who they are or are too lazy or stupid to explain themselves. There is no tie between the 2 companies with similar names so why are they passing themselves off as a bunch of out of business crooks I wonder? I suspect that they took over the books of the wound up co and failed to explain themselves to the old clients and just carried on. Now that will be somehting to explore IF they do take you to court.   We really need to see the signs(ideally as they were back then so streetview archive images plus new photos please) if possible along with the original paperwork and an idea of when they dropped through your letter box with reference to the 12+2 days allowed under the POFA.   If you can get that then it will be fairly easy to compose a stinging response to their LBA.
    • The timeplate only relates to the parking bay. The SYL's are governed by the times on the entry signs to the Controlled Parking Zone. I've looked on Croydons website but can't find the restriction times for Zone W. The T-bar is no longer a requirement, but the SYL must be substantially compliant, which from your photo I would say it is.   You need to get a resident permit or at least visitor permits ASAP or you're going to continue to get more pcn's  
  • Our picks


Excel/BW claimform - PCN Swansea SA1 2012

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 812 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Wait for the experts, but did the judge really say he would allow a solicitors aid to speak as a lay representative without the claimant being present??


I only have 11 days left before an appeal has to be in so i cant wait too long.


Yes he did. He seemed a bit insulted someone from outside the legal world had come into his court and questioned the credentials of someone.


When he asked her to respond to my challenge she stated she had been a practising paralegal for 10 years and presented many cases in court including Swansea courts.


I think the judge thought it he doesnt allow her to speak then serious questions need to be asked as this woman has presented cases in his own court many times when she wasnt allowed to.


he quoted some other CPR stuff and said that it was the courts discretion to allow it and he was going to allow it.

Yet he missed the part of my statement, point 2, that said the defendant denies being the driver and made his judgement based on that.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

a paralegal can present if the claimant/defendant is present. If no-one else showed up from Excel then they cant even act as a lay rep. so who else whas there?


You were adviswed to tajke copies of the rights of audinece legislation with you, did you do this? You could have quoted or at least got the judge to read it, everything is voice recorded so your appeal would ahve been simpler as the judge may well realise that what was said was plain wrong.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

no one else was present from excel or BW,

the person that showed up was from another law firm that is a member of the CILEx.


I took with me a direct quote from the CILEx website that states clearly

"members do not have any extra rights and have to be under the supervision of a solicitor"

the judge had no interest in this. glossed over it.


I also took with me a stated case Ellis V Larson where the judge said

"being instructed by is not the same as under the supervision of and as the other person did not attend for their WS to be cross examined the judge said rights of audience were not satisfied"


The judge read this and said

"I have read the case but the findings of other judges of my rank are not binding upon me and i am not obliged to come to the same conclusion and i am satisfied that rights of audience are satisfied"


with regards to my WS.

I sent in my bundle copies of stated cases we have talked about where excell have no proof of the driver and cannot rely on the pofa.


The judge again said the findings of other judges are not binding upon him and reused to even read the cases in my evidence bundle.


The bottom line is his judgement judgement was based on balance of probabilities of me being the driver and CRP 16.5.5


He said as I didnt deny being the driver i must of been the driver (even though i stated in my WS I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, point 2 of WS) and 16.5 as i didnt deny it that i am taken to admit it, and said 16..5.3 and 16.5.4 did not apply,


He did say when allowing the lay rep to speak "even if i am wrong" so he clearly wasnt sure "even if i am wrong its the discretion of the court under CPR etc etc etc"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

then that is the point of law that you can hang everything else on for your appeal regarding the matters of fact that were ignored.

The discretion of the court would allow the unqualified person to speak as a lay rep IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CLIENT, not on their own.


the judge cant then decide to have the haring "on the papers" and use the written evidence alone from the other side and you get to speak and rubbish it to your hearts content.


Now you havent answered the other questions about what you put in your Witness Statement.


The POFA does away with balance of probabilities but your matter was from before that date so again the judge seems to have misdirected themself when they state this as you have offered evidence that you were not the driver at the time and it is for the parking to to show WHO they have a contract with as it is not the keeper.


Again, the CPR seems to have been an error in law when maing that determination so you have 2 points of law and several matters of fact to go with.


Sometimes you get the same judge reversing their own decision of they listen to the tape and then realise they have screwed up.

You can get a copy of the trnascript for a (considerable ) cost but I dont think you are allowed a copy of the tape.

would be worth asking the courts service about this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that was in my bundle was submitted to the courts and to BW in time.

The judge had it in front of him he just refused to give them any attention as "findings in other cases are not binding upon me" was what he said.


my original 2 line defence stated i was not offered a contract so there is no breach of contract for me to answer. which i believe fulfils CPR 16.5.3 and in any case 16.5.4 is applicable as it clearly states when the claim is for money the defendant requires it to be proved.



how the judge said that was not a valid defence and im still taken to admit i really do not understand?!



the other thing is as he said based on balance of probabilities as i failed to deny being the driver but as we have said in my WS it says the defendant denies being the driver. So i really dont understand how the judge got it so wrong

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


the judge CAN decide to have the hearing on the papers is what I meant to write but they clearly didnt.

That is very different from what happened.


On your other post I mention the different rankings of judges and who they must defer to

Any idea whether yours was a DDJ, DJ or HHJ?


I would say that you have good reason to appeal and good prospects of a successful appeal at that but try contacting John Wilkie at the BMPA, he is the expert on this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure tbh. I could ring the court and find out?


I have emailed the BMPA help desk. Will update when I get a response

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im receiving mixed advice around appeal. Will update when i make a decision. I think its shocking the judge allowed the advocate to speak when i made it so blatantly clear that she has no rights of audience and the fact he missed the whole line of my WS where i denied being the driver. absolutely shocking.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...