VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - double dipping - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ ***Claim Dismissed***

[AndyOrch]

Well done I have updated your topic title.

 

Andy

[honeybee13]

Brilliant news, I'm really pleased for you.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

That is good news. I didn't think that they needed to act unreasonably in order for you to get your costs paid. It would be helpful for others if you could kindly give an idea at least of the dailogue between the Judge, VCS and yourself. And did you know early on that you were going to win or  did he keep it till near the end?

[brassnecked]

Brilliant , another kick in the butt for Simon.

[dx100uk]

did simon himself turn up??

 

[FTMDave]

Just knocked off work and seen this superb news.  Well done 

 

Unreasonable costs was just a very vague idea from me which judges hardly ever grant, so no worries there.

 

Another welcome hammering for Simon.

Edited July 5, 2021 by FTMDave
Typo

[holmer444]

Sure, happy to.

 

Walli didn't attend and VCS sent a representative (who I presume was from ELMS).

 

The judge started by confirming she had all the correct documents, turned out she didn't as Walli hadn't sent his supplementary statement to the court so there was an amount of faffing whilst the representative sent the document through.

 

Judge started by asking representative to confirm that he was happy that they couldn't rely on POFA and he agreed he was. Judge then outlined that she felt there were two main issues to discuss - was there a contract and did I breach it and was I parked in the car park when the claimant said I was.

 

Claimants representative was asked to go first, basis of his argument was to point out all the signs etc. And that it was reasonable to expect I had accepted the contract etc. He then moved onto trying to discredit my Google location data as the times of my whereabouts were several minutes out of line with the time stamps from the ANPR cameras. There was also some fluff about it being reasonable to presume I was driving and a bit about having an opportunity to identify who, if I wasn't driving, was.

 

The judge asked me if I was driving, I respectfully declined to answer and said it was the Claimants job to identify who was driving and I could find nothing in POFA compelling me to name the driver so wasn't going to. On the subject of discrepancies between my Google maps data and the Claimants ANPR cameras, I suggested that the accuracy of Google whose accuracy seems to be accepted the world over was likely to be better than some dodgy ANPR cameras for which the representative is unable to provide even the most basic of evidence as to when they were last calibrated.

 

I also mentioned lookedforinfos bit about Brindley v Felt house which made the judge laugh as she said she hadn't heard that mentioned since her first year of law school (but she was familiar with it) and summarised by reiterating the point in my ws that surely I was either driving and parked within the rules or I wasn't and because of the acknowledgement the claimant couldn't rely on POFA I couldn't be pursued.

 

The judge took a moment to gather her thoughts then delivered her summing up, she suggested she felt the claimant had done enough to establish a contract existed, but as they hadn't established who was driving couldn't prove who it was with. She then went on to say that if the claimant felt that was a bit light she felt that the slight discrepancy in the Google times and the ANPR times wasn't enough to warrant Google was wrong and she felt that my argument about double dipping was most likely what happened.

 

She was then going to dismiss when I queried costs, mentioned the claimant being a serial litigant and asked for unreasonable costs. Made the mistake of admitting I'd used paid annual leave so the representative argued there was no financial loss. The judge suggested that the claim wasn't unreasonable and so she wouldn't award unreasonable costs and that was that.

[holmer444]

Oh and no, Simon didn't attend 

[honeybee13]

You were really on top of your arguments, well done again.

 

I love the bit about respectfully declining to name the driver, you could have come unstuck there without quick thinking.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Yes I thought that was a clever way of not answering the question.

I am surprised though that she accepted there was a contract. Considering there was no confirmaion from the land owner for the Managing agent to sign nor that the land owners name didn't seem to exist. 

[AndyOrch]

3 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

That is good news. I didn't think that they needed to act unreasonably in order for you to get your costs paid. It would be helpful for others if you could kindly give an idea at least of the dailogue between the Judge, VCS and yourself. And did you know early on that you were going to win or  did he keep it till near the end?

 

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably;

 

 

PART 27 - THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK - Civil Procedure Rules

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV.UK

 

[lookinforinfo]

Yes I too thought that was a clever way of not answering the question. And their lack of calibration of their cameras.

I am surprised though that she accepted there was a contract. It was signed by the managing agent with no confirmation from the land owner that they had the right to sign plus no evidence that there was  even a company by that name. Did she mention the lack of planning permission?

 

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry for the repeat post. 

[FTMDave]

So much for Wally's feather.

 

Seems like the judge decided there wasn't the weight of one feather on the the OP's side, more like a hundredweight of feathers

[brassnecked]

Does show the importance iof challenging the Contract allegedly formed, and whether its frustrated at the start by signage, impossibility, with broken machines, and an app that doesn't work.  Anything that undermines the capacity of a PPC to sue, Airports & Residential especially where byelaws, or Supremacy of Contract may bear on it.

[holmer444]

12 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Yes I thought that was a clever way of not answering the question.

I am surprised though that she accepted there was a contract. Considering there was no confirmaion from the land owner for the Managing agent to sign nor that the land owners name didn't seem to exist. 

My stomach fell through the floor when the judge said it as part of summing up as I felt this was leading to a decision in favour of the Claimant.

 

My gut feel (and I could be a million miles away here) was that the Judge had read the evidence and decided on the balance of probability that my story was likely the truth, so didn't want to go through the what she referred to as the peripheral issues. I think the reason it was accepted a contract was formed was because in my version of the story I parked within the terms of any 'contract', so it was easier to use that to rubbish the claimants case rather than going down the whole rabbit hole of whether or not a contract ever existed in the first place (if that makes any sense).  

 

Planning permission wasn't mentioned at all, again I think for the reasons outlined above.

Edited July 6, 2021 by holmer444

[intree]

It is concerning that unreasonable behaviour by the other side is not considered as such by the Courts in the small claim track, as LIP has to spend a considerable time and effort to fight a defendant whose defence to date of the trial has been to ignore the law and guidance of regulatory bodies and then not even face any consequence's for such actions.

 

If the Courts are for Justice then that Justice should also be applied equally to the injustice of having to deal with a defendant who has no regard for the claimants, concerns,  and the Claimants' financial means.

 

LIP costs are only 19.00 per hour, this is a reasonable amount not excessive or such as a lawyer may charge which would be a starting point of £35 per hour up to £250 per hour, where is the justice in asking a LIP to make a claim through MCOL, send a letter before claim, carry out all the actions as a lawyer is intended to to pursue a valid claim, THEN

 

Put in a Rule to disallow the LIP costs as its a small claim, its my view the whole process seems weighted to keep the Litigant in Person in their place, when the defendant can do as they wish and not be accountable, under the Court rules.

 

So Sad

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks Holmer444 for coming back and explaining the course of the hearing and also your insights into what may have being going on. Your comments help us to improve what to put in other WS's so that we can get even more motorists winning despite the Judge lottery.

[holmer444]

I'm more than happy to help in anyway I can (it'll not even begin to chip away at the debt of gratitude I owe those on this board). I think my witness statement was okay, it was more likely my performance in court that would have risked me losing. I thought I was ready, but I don't think I was as ready as I thought I was.

 

I was incredibly nervous and the judge deciding to only focus on specific parts of my WS really threw me, I'd rehearsed it like a script which flustered me. There were also some little things like calling the Judge Sir/Madam I hadn't expected (I'd presumed 'your honour'). I guess if I was going to give anyone doing this for the first time, it would be to understand each argument of your WS individually and be ready to lead with any one of them.

 

Guess this is all part of the judge lottery I guess 

[lookinforinfo]

That is why we encourage people to read other cases which we hope will include Witness Statements so if it gets to Court it helps them to answer/get round questions from the Claimants solicitor or the Judge.

[holmer444]

So...received a letter of claim yesterday from a DC Legal dated 6 July relating to an overstay in the same car park from 2016...

 

Looks like the funs not over yet

Edited July 11, 2021 by holmer444

[dx100uk]

create a new thread

 

dx

[lookinforinfo]

At least you know it will be a piece of cake now.