Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket

[dx100uk]

3 minutes ago, harni said:

do we think this is two other cases regarding Countrywide parking or just two other cases in general?

could be anything.

 

dx

[harni]

Hi all,

this hearing is tomorrow at 11:30 on the phone so I am just revising the whole situation as it’s been going on for over a year now. One thing I have noticed in the claimants pack is a letter to the courts stating pursuant to CPR 27.9 the client will not be in attendance and they will be represented by an advocate. 
 

what impact if any does this have? Am I correct in thinking the advocate has no position to argue the case?

[dx100uk]

makes the WS inadmissible as such, so 1st Q for you to ask is ..

is the person that wrote the claimants witness statement present please?

re right of audience 

[harni]

Thanks DX. I have just re read the 90 page bundle and have remembered a fair few points on this now so feel armed for the call tomorrow. I have never done anything like this before so not really sure what to expect. The case has been allocated 1hr30. I assume like all court cases despite being on the phone it will be a very formal event 

[shamrocker]

Good luck!

[brassnecked]

Good luck, don't forget to ask is the WS author present for VCS, as DX says, if not it puts them on back foot straight away.

[harni]

24 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Good luck, don't forget to ask is the WS author present for VCS, as DX says, if not it puts them on back foot straight away.

thanks! I will be sure to do so. I’m assuming as they aren’t present, it leaves them in a position where they can only recite the WS and no more? Wouldn’t be able to answer any questioning from myself or the judge? Sorry if these are stupid questions, my first time in a court situation!

[dx100uk]

exactly so it should not form any part of the case

 

might find it useful to re focus and read your thread from post 1 again

as all the points are here in posts 

[harni]

Claim Dismissed!

 

The hearing lasted for about 45 minutes on the phone. As expected, the claimant did not attend. The judge was very helpful and considering it was my first time in a court setting, assisted with the process.

 

The case was dismissed on the basis that the claimant had provided no evidence that the signage forbid double parking at the time (even though on multiple occasions she argued it did with no evidence!).

 

The court have also awarded £95 costs.

 

The claimant asked for the case to be appealed on the basis that the signage was correct.

The judge did not allow it for the simple fact that my evidence showed a picture of the sign the day before the final PCN.

 

Also, the judge made a point of mentioning just how clear and precise the WS was so to all of you that have helped me with this case,

 

my sincerest thanks!

[shamrocker]

Awesome - great stuff!

 

They're lucky it's only £95 they owe you.

 

Bet you're glad it's all been resolved, finally. Was there any mention of the fact the parking space is not on land managed by the claimant?

[harni]

No there wasnt.

 

The judge did make a point that my extract from my lease agreement did not cover if a parking space was included however dismissed that point later on based on the fact that the claimant wasn't claiming on the basis of not parking in the correct space but double parking. 

[honeybee13]

Brilliant, harni, well done.   I'll amend your thread title.

 

HB

[shamrocker]

1 minute ago, harni said:

 

No there wasnt. The judge did make a point that my extract from my lease agreement did not cover if a parking space was included however dismissed that point later on based on the fact that the claimant wasnt claiming on the basis of not parking in the correct space but double parking. 

You had a killer argument that was well supported, so it would make sense to not spend time on other arguments which are more difficult to persuade. The claimant isn't particularly clever really, and was  probably just blinded by what they thought would be an easy £600 (your hard earned cash!).

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

 

It must be immensely satisfying to see off these crooks after so long 

[harni]

even more satisfying knowing I’m going to have a blow out take away and a bottle of red at their expense tonight!

[brassnecked]

Great news surely the PPC's must be near getting a bigger kicking by a Judge soon.

[FTMDave]

Hope the take away and bottle of red tasted sweet!

I'm just rereading the thread, and see that CPM are a particularly obnoxious bunch, even coming out with personal insults during the IAS appeal. 

Ho!  Ho!  Ho!  Who is "pathetic" now then?!

As Shamrocker says, they are thickos.  Basically their "case" was built on "I'm right because I say I'm right, and all my mates at the IAS say I'm right too so I must be right".  Tough.  They've now been taught they have to abide by the same laws as the other 59.2 million people in England & Wales.

Once they have coughed up the £95 I would be tempted to write to them and warn them that if they ever trespass on your property again (your car) then they will be back in court sharpish as you'll sue them for trespass, GDPR breach and anything else you can think of (IIRC someone actually did this and sued the PPC for trespass).

This reminds me that 30-odd years ago I went to solicitors and asked them to sort out something legally for me every six months.  Every six months they failed to do so so I eventually told them I would deal with it myself, I wasn't paying their last bill, and I wanted to be taken to court re their bill ASAP.  These were solicitors, not a PPC FFS, people who are supposed to know about laws, procedures, etc.  They could simply have apologised.  It was down in B&W, constantly, that they hadn't done what I had asked as they were too lazy to read the file properly.  But oh no, I got a snooty reply that they were right but they wouldn't bother a court for the debt, however they would never accept instructions from me again.  So in revenge I complained to their professional body on three points, winning on two.  Surreally they appealed, presumably on the basis that they were important people and I was an oik so they were right.  Didn't do them much good, at appeal level they were told by their professional body that the two points in my favour were correct, indeed it should have been three!  Called "Hunt & Hunt", of Ilford, don't know if the arrogant buffoons are still going or not. 

Well done again.  So nice to see off these pompous, puffed-up, self-important so-and-sos.

[dx100uk]

please don't forget to donate

keep us here to help others like you...

 

well done CAG

 

dx

 

[brassnecked]

I would be inclined to go after them under GDPR anyway, once they cough up the costs  as they are stupid enough to invoice you again.  Likely another £500 for you and cost to them, and risk of a ICO fine for them.

[harni]

13 hours ago, brassnecked said:

I would be inclined to go after them under GDPR anyway, once they cough up the costs  as they are stupid enough to invoice you again.  Likely another £500 for you and cost to them, and risk of a ICO fine for them.

out of interest, how would they have breached GDPR in my case? The tickets were windscreen tickets and I approached them with my details so they would have no reason to go to DVLA (which I believe they didn’t as the lease company would have charged me as they are the RK of the vehicle)

 

however...in their WS (incorrectly) they did say they contacted DVLA...

[brassnecked]

Might be worth looking into exactly who passed the data and when, but might then be best leave it  for now then.

[dx100uk]

Open

[harni]

So who wants a laugh? Following on from my win against CPM in court with costs awarded against 3 tickets issued over a 5 day period, they are now chasing me again. 
 

they originally gave me about 6 tickets for the same thing over a period of about 6 months however only took me to court for the 3 that were close together. I have come home today to a letter from BW legal chasing one of the remaining tickets threatening court action. You can’t make this up!!

 

im not expecting them to take this to court considering the low value but if they do, I intend on having some real fun with this!

[lookinforinfo]

Did you ever think that maybe they were embarrassed at only having to pay you such a small amount despite all the pressure they had put on you? So they are giving you a second bite at the cherrry to recoup your other  claims for time spent on  research etc.  

No neither did I. You just to have to take their supreme idiocy and greed into account.

[harni]

Actually can’t believe I’m back here doing this again but here we are!

 

in 2018 I started the following thread based on Countrywide Parking Management issuing me multiple tickets in my own parking space in the flats I used to live in.

 

Long story short, it dragged on for a long time and eventually I had a phone hearing at our local court where I won against them and was awarded costs. 
 

fast forward to now and They have found me at my new address and have started chasing me for what I am sure is the final ticket that was issued through this laughable timeline of events.

 

These have been ignored however today I have come home to a letter of claim from BW stating they have been instructed to issue court proceedings should I not respond or pay. 
 

I have no issues taking these clowns to court again but in all honestly, I can’t be bothered nor have I got the time. 
 

I am going to write my response to their LBC however I would like to ask, is it worth bringing their attention to my previous court case with solid evidence of them having to pay me costs?

 

I am assuming they have an automated system for chasing these and there is no joined up thinking so maybe it would be a good idea to bring to their attention that we have done this once before and it didn’t end well for them!

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue