County Court Case loss today, HX Car Park Management Ltd, despite no planning permission for signs / cameras and no Deed of Assignment

[Terrier7]

Help! Does anyone know of a body that would run an appeal on this in the public interest?

I have assisted people to win over 50 cases on similar arguments, last three, the parking co. bailed out and discontinued on the no planning permission I think, though no reasons were specified. I referred to three matters where no planning permission for signs / cameras had been ruled as invalidating the tickets issued, also no Deed of assignment as per Law of Property Act 1925.

Today, with the same arguments and evidence, a county court judge ruled in favour of the parking company, HX Car Park Management Ltd, who did not attend court but put written representations in. The judge ruled that the company were right to operate cameras and signs without planning permission.

It seems that the judge must be wrong regarding the law and panning permission, also the Law of Property act.

This case could have major implications across the country for any parking tickets issued with no planning permission, but my farmer neighbour is reluctant to appeal it himself, both with cost and that he is very busy with harvest.

 

CLAIM FK3GF9473 WITNESS STATEMENT REDACTED FOR HEARING 8.8.23.doc Barrow Council compensate motorist for illegal ParkingEye signs.doc CHRONICLE - PARKING CHARGES UNLAWFUL WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION.doc PLANNING PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR PARKING MACHINES AND SIGNAGE.doc

[Nicky Boy]

IMHO the defence is severely lacking.

Are you by any chance charging a fee for your "assistance"?

[Man in the middle]

From your claim document:

Quote

8. Finally, as the overriding principle of the CPR Rules demands that the Claimant must prove their Claim,...

Where did you get that from? Here's the opening provision of the Civil Procedure Rules:

The overriding objective
1.1—(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. [my emphasis]

Could there possibly be any more misunderstandings where your grasp of the law and procedures may be a little less complete than that of the judge?

[Terrier7]

Burden of Proof & Balance of Probabilities in Civil Litigation: Law Simplified

HALLELLIS.CO.UK

---

The Civil litigation burden of proof and the balance of probabilities. How courts decide facts on witness evidence: simplified by lawyers

 

@Nicky Boy No, I am not charging. Just glad to fight the system.

I would appreciate any suggestions on improving the defence.

[Nicky Boy]

Terrier,

Witness Statements, because the circumstances of each PCN vary, are all different.

Just using a standard defence, which you appear to be doing, misses one heck of a lot of targets.

Just refer your contacts here, then join in the forum discussion and "fight the system" with your own expertise.

How on earth did you get involved with advising in excess of 50 cases?

[dx100uk]

it wont set a precedence either even if you lose..

 

[nightnajjers]

I had a case with VCS in January. Part of the defence was that there was not planning permission for signs on the site. The judge dismissed that part of the defence saying, "that it had been long held that no planning permission for signs was not a defence"? the judge did not elaborate further.

I was a bit mystified by that statement

 

[Terrier7]

@Nicky Boy

Thank you.

Around 20 years ago I got involved in fighting the scam tickets (and many other corrupt aspects in the courts). I lost one parking matter around 15 years ago on a wrong aspect in contract law, then have defeated all the others ever since and, as you quite rightly say, have developed a 'standard' defence which has worked ever since, or the companies have backed out before a hearing (well in excess of 50). My main activity is in planning permissions and fighting planning enforcement officer tyrants (they always break the law). Hence a look at the planning permission angle and finding other cases where that argument has been successful.

I agree that each case on it's own merits, however, there are some doctrines in law and the CPR Rules that are universal. Where it has been to people I do not know (friend of a friend etc) and where I receive little information, the standard defence I pass on has been successful. From the feedback, the judge on the case today was not well up on planning and my neighbour farmer was not educated in that enough to argue that aspect. In hindsight, the relevant sections of planning control should have been quoted and perhaps some case law re planning decisions. I think an appeal would be successful, if it were my own I would not hesitate.

I think planning permission is an important aspect that should be explored, assuming a case could be appealed right up, it might be that a precedent decision would defeat many parking enforcement acting without planning permission for signs and / or cameras. Or others could use this argument by searching on the LPA website for planning permission and the address of the car park in question, as the last few with North West / Vehicle Control Services have discontinued before hearing.

[Nicky Boy]

This is another good reason why the victims should take part in the forum.

We encourage / force them to educate themselves, so when they attend a hearing, they don't just end up reading a witness statement with no idea what it means.

Yes, planning permission invariably forms a small part of our users witness statements, but there are far more aspects.

So, if a Judge throws one argument out, there are several more to make.

You only need to win one of them!

[Terrier7]

@nightnajjers

If you look at the documents I attached to the first post, the councils who are the planning control certainly accept that planning permission is essential. If you build a house without it, they will make you knock it down.

Also, I believe that the 'clean hands' doctrine may apply - if a law is broken, then no one can profit as a result or use such in a claim. The legal maxim is Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio or No action can arise from an illegal or immoral act.

In planning 'carrying out development without the required planning permission' is an offence somewhere in the Town and Country Planning Act and erection of signs / cameras requires planning permission.

Good point by Nickyboy re multiple arguments and encouraging victims to learn, that is kind of a condition I state when supplying the basis of a defence and encourage them to understand and amend it to suit their circumstances.

However, most people are terrified of going to court and reluctant to speak up against a cantankerous judge. Of course we are often lucky if the judge's own family or friends have received an unfair or penal ticket, which many have!

[nightnajjers]

NB "So, if a Judge throws one argument out, there are several more to make:". Indeed, with the forums assistance, in my case several more arguements were made. In the end the  Judge dismissed the claim on the poor location of the the entry sign and the fact that is was not illuminated.

T7 it is amazing how much time and effort can be put into minor planning contraventions on the basis of a letter of complaint from nosy neighbours. but erect signs willy nilly on car parks and the local council could not care less.

[Man in the middle]

Thanks for the solicitor's explanation of the Burden of Proof. Unfortunately it doesn't explain how your understanding of the overriding principle of the Civil Procedure Rules differs from the aim stated in those rules themselves. 

Quote

If you build a house without it, they will make you knock it down.

Indeed. But you can live in it until they do.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Not all car parks require planning permission.It depends on the size of the car park, if it is an enclosed car park and if planning permission was given to a previous parking company in the past. There may be another reason or two as I haven't checked it out lately since most Judges tend not to look upon it as a reason to cancel a PCN.. Of course the parking rogues have also flummoxed Judges by their lies -sometimes about retrospective permission [which is totally fallacious] but has worked on some Judges.

[Terrier7]

@maninthemiddle

Hi, Not sure what you are getting to. An overriding principle is different from the overriding objective. You can't achieve the overriding objective by breaching a fundamental principle whereby the Claimant MUST prove their Claim. Except in defamation, a strange quirk in English law. If the Claimant cannot prove their Claim - then it fails.

 

In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. 

It's a fundamental principle.

Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first, before the defendant.

It's not for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant. 

The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting a proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof.

To satisfy the burden of proof:

• the party with the burden of proof
• must prove the alleged fact
• to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.

[Man in the middle]

Thanks for the cut & paste from the solicitor's site.

What intrigues me is that at least two County Court judges have disagreed with your contention. Now of course, judges are not always correct. But it does seem odd that two cases, hinging on the same issue, but judged by different judges in different parts of the country, have turned out the same way. Of course there may be more.

I wish you well with your crusade.

[FTMDave]

I've been on this forum for seven years.  During that time we have advised Caggers to put a section about lack of planning permission/illegal signage in every Witness Statement.  Not once have we seen a judge pick up that point and use it to chuck out a claim.

They should by the letter of the law, but it seems lack of PP is not enough to rule against the PPCs for a judge, they need more.

So we always give them more.

[lookinforinfo]

I think if you are going to use lack of pp then you will probably be better enlarging on the subject. You can do this by quoting from the Town and country  planning [advertisements] ltd 2012 and the section relevant to private car parks.

Pointing out that it is a criminal offence not to have pp so it follows that there can be no contract formed from an illegal instruction. You can then back it up with the new Private Pag) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

Of course the rogues will say that the Private Parking Act isn't in force at the moment. While that is true, they are only pointing out the Town and Country Act which has been in force since 2012 ergo the Courts should be observing it now. 

In the case just lost though it might be better to ensure that there should be pp necessary at that particular site.

[Terrier7]

@lookinforinfo

Thank you, great information I wasn't aware of.

The aspect of no PP has been accepted elsewhere and I believe that's why cases have been discontinued. If it was my case I would appeal it up. However, better to throw the 'kitchen sink' in with as many unlawful aspects as possible.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry part of it got a bit garbled. Should have read Private Parking Code of Practice  Section 14 .1 (g).

And of course quite often their PCNs do not comply with PoFA meaning that the keeper is not responsible for the debt.