NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

Understood.  Excellent work.

You'll probably need to do a tiny bit of last-minute tweaking depending on what the fleecers write in their WS.

[Nicky Boy]

And, if these expert friends ever have a bit of spare time on their hands, send them to over to CAG.

[MoaningCrusader]

Please see the Notice of Trial Date doc that I was sent by the County Court.

Will I be notified of when the fleecers have submitted their WS? The MCOL website seems to have stop updating since they assigned the matter on to the County Court.

If not, where do I find this. I obviously have all their cut & pasted letters outlining their case against me after my response to their LoC, but I don't think that constitutes their defence WS, does it?

NoticeofTrialDate.pdf

[dx100uk]

mcol closes upon allocaTION out to your locAL county court

THE PPC HAVE TO SEND YOU A COPY TOO JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO SEND THEM YOURS. read the pdf ....by 7 days before hearing.

opps caps sorry

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks for clarifying dx100

I may be being blind here, but I can't see anywhere on the pdf I just uploaded where I am being instructed to send my Defence WS to the fleecers? All I seem to see is that it instructs me that, "All documents and correspondences are to be sent electronically to xxxx County Court...." 

I'm sorry if I have missed something? Could you point me to where it is stated that I have to send my defence to them? I am getting somewhat overwhelmed here with paper.

Also, I have told the fleecers I do not want to communicate by email, so should I post a printed version to them? Will thy have to have received this by 13th Sept? Or can I simply post it then and get a Post Office FPP?

 

[dx100uk]

its std practice. to exchange witness statements (its not a defence!) 

actually thinking about i , if you dont get theirs by say 23:55 on the day it due, there is no harm in youremailing it even though you've said not to use email

play them at their own game!

 

[Nicky Boy]

Be careful with that though. I've noticed on some letters that the fleecers / dodgy solicitors state that they don't accept service by email.

Have a quick check of their correspondence. 

[dx100uk]

oh but its ok for them to send things out by email...nope cant enforce that if they've already used email sod 'em

[MoaningCrusader]

CASE DISMISSED. 

Apologies for silence. I was asked to drop off any public areas and not share our course of action. I will revert with full defence and help for people on here asap.

But I have to wait for obvious permission from the legal team.

the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no real opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs of 'the contract' before entering the DOZ.

 

[AndyOrch]

Congrats topic title updated.

 

Andy

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

 

Is it 3-0 now?  This court victory, the one they "should" have issued at Gatwick airport but their software messed up, and the one they cancelled?  Just leaving the one Gatwick hotel parking one in limbo?

[brassnecked]

Excellent another dodgy fleecer claim vaped.

[FTMDave]

What happened to tolchocked BN? 

[lookinforinfo]

Well done. I trust you will now change your name to Happy Crusader?

I agree with the Judge that it is a fait accompli when you enter the DOZ since you have breached their terms just by entering.

[Nicky Boy]

Huzzaaaa!

[brassnecked]

That was beyond a Tolchok it was a vapourisation Dave

[FruitSalad1010]

On 20/09/2023 at 16:41, MoaningCrusader said:

CASE DISMISSED. 

Apologies for silence. I was asked to drop off any public areas and not share our course of action. I will revert with full defence and help for people on here asap.

But I have to wait for obvious permission from the legal team.

But basically, the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no real opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs of 'the contract' before entering the DOZ.

 

Asked by who?

Was the case dismissed or did you agree to a settlement via Tomlin Order (which you may not be at liberty to disclose).

If the judge dismissed the claim then I cannot see how you agreed to any confidentiality concerning a claim that was heard in an open court.

[dx100uk]

i believe this person as well as cag advise used a a firm of solicitors (why i dont know! ) and they are the ones restricting his freedom of speech.

a tomlin does not restrict you from revealing its contents nor the outcome of a case. thats not what the associated clause means.

 

[MoaningCrusader]

The case was dismissed. 

We did not want to post any further plans on here as anyone can read this thread, including the fleecers, if I am correct.

I had a barrister in the end, who worked pro bono because he himself was caught out by the DOZ at Heathrow and wanted to test his argument in a court, but couldn’t on his own case as it was discontinued as soon as they found out he was a barrister. We had to hide his involvement as we were concerned should the fleecers discover it and discontinue the case. 

We are currently going to the press about our case result. 
 

[lookinforinfo]

Good on you. Are you looking at the National press or a local paper? Please let us know as we love a happy ending.

[MoaningCrusader]

Yes we are going to major national newspapers. The instructing solicitor's firm (who also was a victim of the DOZ at Heathrow) has a PR department who will be handling this. We are waiting for the judge to sign off a drawn up summary of her judgement, as we don't want to pay for the transcript which could take months to be produced. 

We asked if we could use it to publicise the fact the fleecers use the Parkingeye vs Beavis to bully people into thinking they have no choice but to pay these charges. And in particular with my case how they use a completely irrelevant Supreme Court judgement to support their bullying, when in fact the judgements of the Law Lords in most cases supports the fact the likes of DOZs at Gatwick and Heathrow are unfair and unenforceable.

 

[MoaningCrusader]

I thought I might put up some stuff to help any other CAGers hit with APNR DOZ penalty charges.

I am sharing a redacted:

1. My WS

2. The Defence Skeleton Argument (which was submitted later than the bundle)

3. Defendant's Authorities 

Unfortunately, I cannot upload the trial bundle as it's 52MB in size. But I hope the above helps people. Is there anyway of getting the trial bundle up?

I have redacted all documents. I hope I have got everything before I stop my Adobe subscription. Please should you find any info that you feel should be taken down, let me know.

FYI everyone I was strongly advised to not use any POFA in my WS etc. This is primarily because I would be unable to lie under cross examination from either the claimant's solicitor or the Judge. If I lied it would be perjury. Even if I did attempt to mislead the court (again not advised) it would not take long for them to find out through further cross examination that I don't have any other names on my car insurance, and even if I did, I would then be wrongfully naming them as the driver. Basically it's a very messy argument. I was also advised that POFA is being misread by all parties.

On the whole, I was advised to focus on the core argument of an unfair contract. The DOZ set up is clearly completely unfair, and therefore the strongest and really only argument with any real strength in this case. There's no point going into anything else. It would be different in a more standard car park set up. In fact, I have to stress this is all only relevant to APNR DOZ set ups.

The judge dismissed the case solely on the basis that the defendant had no 'REAL' opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs before being put under contract. The judge refused to carry on with any further judgement on our submissions. This was disappointing, as we wanted to get them on the fact that the contract was unenforceable in common law. I think the judge cleverly avoided giving a more controversial judgement in a Small Claims Court.

The judge did say that the parking charge amount was fair, and would not be drawn into the recovery costs submission, as the case had already been dismissed on the first submission of unfair contract.

PS There was an article ran in a major newspaper last weekend... I won't confirm it was me in the article... But the case is very similar. 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT_Redacted.pdf Gatwick DOZ - Defendant's skeleton argument_Redacted.pdf DEFENDANT'S AUTHORITIES.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Another avenue of complaint is that there appears to be only one way to pay. If you don't have access to wifi or your supplier's system is down for maintenance or repair you cannot pay.

I also recognise the problem you had when checking to see whether a payment had been recorded or not. I had  the same problem with TFL and their Congestion charge help facility. It is tantamount to a scam site. I wanted to know if my car had entered the Congestion charge area in the past four days. They said nothing had come up for the third and fourth days but couldn't confirm anything for the first and second days. 

They suggested that I could pay the charge  for the second day to cover myself but they would no give me a refund if no charge had been due and nor would they accept that payment could be transferred to the first day  if a charge was due from the first day. NCP could take lessons from TFL on how to increase their income.

[MoaningCrusader]

Yes. I agree. This point is covered in para 3.5 of the skeleton argument and was put to the judge.

[FruitSalad1010]

Thank you for everything you have posted. If you are able I think it would also help others to post up a copy of the Claimant's WS and skeleton.