PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Operator 'Lied' in Small Claims Court, Birmingham - private land - summer 2016
Mystified-one
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 18:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785




Hello

This was in relation to a Parking ticket on private land from a ‘known operator’ – ticket issued in the summer of 2016.

The case hinged on signage – I think that the Operator has effectively 'lied' in Court over signage as there was only one sign in the car park when the ticket was issued – the signage was substantially increased within 3 weeks of the parking ticket y the ‘Operator’.
The judge did not accept my 'expert' testimony as to the number of signs.

The Operator was represented by a Barrister and I represented myself and I'm not a Solicitor.

I have been refused any right of Appeal.

I thought that I had a strong Defence/Witness Statement but I think that the decision is 'political'.

I was not impressed with the DDJ and as did not introduce either 'themselves' or the Barrister even though it was clear that both were knew each other very well.

Things turned down when I questioned the Right of Appearance of someone who had not introduced 'themselves'.

The DDJ said that the Court had not received any documents from me for the Hearing - even though I had a an email acknowledgement of receipt of documents.

The Judge did not want to know my case - it was a 'Stitch Up' - I think that my Witness Statement was more than they could handle.

Just warning you guys out there - the Small Clams Court is very uncertain.

I'm obviously being cautious with the post - but I've have had a disappointing experience as defending the truth - I'm not a liar - I asked the Judge if it was thought that I am a liar.

I need to get this off my chest as was a 'shocker' - 'lies' preferred to the 'truth' and with other Witness Statements dismissed as 'nothing'.

Cheers! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 18:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 18:50
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,891
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Which court and which PPC.

It's unusual for a PPC to pay for a (baby) Barrister unless there was a lot of cash in it. How may tickets were there?


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mystified-one
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 19:07
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785



Hello

I may need a confidential email - I'm not sure I should go fully public on this?

Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 19:18
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



you could have asked the DDJ for leave to appeal. Now you have to ask a Judge for leave to appeal - can be expensive.

Small claims court is a lottery, some judges are ill-tempered donuts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mystified-one
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 19:41
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785



Hello

I was told that leave to appeal is not automatic as required the Judges' discretion and I was provided with a hand written N460N form giving a reason why I had been denied leave to appeal and as states that:

"Made finding of fact that there were adequate car parking signs in the car park on the relevant date having evaluated the conflicting witness evidence from the Claimant and Defendant."

But at no time did the Barrister confirm a date for their view of the no of signs?

The Barrister had said that their was reliance on their Client's witness statement but as also failed to confirm a 'date'. At no time has the Claimant/their Barrister given a date for their 'inference' on the no of signs.

Clever, isn't it!

But with regard to the DDJ's comment ... there is no fact to be found as the Claimant has, cleverly, not provide any!

I'll spill my shocking full Court documents to a confidential and trustworthy source - but I'm new on here and I'm not a fool and don't rush into the Court of Appeal.

There are other issues - too many to list here!

Thanks,

rolleyes.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 19:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



appeal would be heard by county court judge.

The DDJ believed the claimant, I would just swallow it unless you have cast iron evidence. You could end up paying costs, nasty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mystified-one
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 20:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785



Hello

Yes, I think that you are right on the costs issue - but there is no 'Appeal' - I was handed an N460N document immediately after the Hearing that is hand written by the judge as stating that 'Appeal' has been denied - Why was the DDJ so anxious to quash my appeal?

The only evidence basis for 'appeal' would probably be for me to obtain Further Witness Statements from other 'victims' as having received a parking ticket for parking in their 'own space' and as their case evidence may hopefully shed light as to when the no of signs was substantially increased at the property in 2016?

I cannot re-visit the Hearing but I can warn other users about 'dubious practices and decisions' - I made some mistakes earlier in the case with my defence and as some of my best evidence only emerged at the Hearing - but don't think the Judicial establishment will follow the 'Forum patter' ... they have their own agenda, in my view.

With some help - I can publish the parties' Witness Statements and full documents for the Hearing and you will see what the issues are and why these 'Robo Claims' have created a huge issue in our legal system.

Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 21:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



you can still apply to a Judge for leave to appeal.

But theres a fee unless you are on benefits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 00:48
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,718
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



There's no way to know why the judge did what he did if you don't provide any of the information he relied upon. Unless you're going to appeal, there's no reason not to "go public" is there?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mystified-one
post Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 01:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785



That's right Churchmouse
I'm thinking on what to do - What information should I post on this if not going to Appeal?
Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 09:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,467
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Mystified-one @ Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 01:53) *
What information should I post on this if not going to Appeal?


Look at all he other PPC threads that have gone to court. Apart from poster's identity, little is censored. No one can give any real assistance if the details are kept secret.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mystified-one
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 04:33
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 4 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,785



Hello again!
I've now received the Judgement Order and there is no reason given for the decision - it simply states that judgement is in favour of the Claimant.
The form does state that permission to appeal is refused and any further request for permission to appeal should be submitted to a Circuit Judge.
I've decided to appeal as I can't accept false evidence being given against me.

MY WITNESS STATEMENT (TEXT) IS NOW SHOWN BELOW (modified post)

________________________________________________________________________________
__
In the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX County Court Case No XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Claimant
Parties and
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Defendant


1. Preliminary matters
1.1 I, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge except where I indicate to the contrary.

1.2 In respect of a disputed parking ticket claim, in respect of the use on XX/07/16 of a ground level enclosed parking space ref. Parking Bay No, XXXXXX at the Premises located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Birmingham.

1.3 The car park is located at XXXXXXXXX

1.4 This Witness Statement is in support of my N244 application dated XXXXX 2017 as seeking an Order for: -

1.4.1 the Claim to be struck out /dismissed
1.4.2 an Order for the payment of the Defendant’s Costs

1.5 The Defendant has two further statements from Witnesses as relating to the inadequacy of car park signage. A copy of the Tenant’s Witness statement was sent to the Court by 1st class mail on XX/XX/2017

1.6 In this Defendant’s witness statement, I shall refer to the existence of documents, true copies of which have been served by email. Copies of documents for the Claimant, as containing personal and confidential data of 3rd parties, have been redacted as I believe that the Claimant (and/or their representatives) has/have not been complying with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) S.13 in relation to their obtaining, handling and storage of my data.

1.7 The defendant is XXXXXXXXXX and is not legally trained and does not have any legal qualifications and that I am therefore pursuing the dismissal of this Claim and recovery of costs, as a lay person. At the Hearing I propose to assert by reference to the documents and by submissions to the court as to fact and law, that the Particulars of the Claim and documents relied upon by the Claimant are inadequate for demonstrating that at the date of the commencement of this case, the Claimant was entitled to any of the redress being sought.

2. Request for an Order to strike out the Claim

2.1 When, on 2nd July 2016, I parked my vehicle in my daughters’ parking space in the ground floor car park at the XXXXXXX (Residential Development) I did so fully in accordance with terms and conditions of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement as made between my daughter and the Leaseholder of the apartment and the subject parking space.

2.2 The Tenancy Agreement allows for the Tenant, her family, visitors and contractors to use the subject parking space free of charge, without the need for displaying a permit or for paying any penalties or other monies. The Agreement provides for quite enjoyment of the parking space. The Tenancy Agreement does not provide for any variation of its terms.

Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated XX/06/16

Schedule 3 –

    Clause 8.1 – To use the Premises only as a private residence for the occupation of the Tenant and his immediate family.

    • Clause 16.1 - To park a private vehicle

    • Clause 16.3 – reference to the Tenant, his family, his contractors and visitors

    • Clause 6 – Venue – The tenant will acknowledge and hereby acknowledge that this agreement was made in the City of Birmingham, which city shall be the venue for any proceedings.


    The Relevant Terms of the Tenancy Agreement.
    Joint tenants under the tenancy Agreement each having individual Tenancy Agreement.
    Legal demise includes parking a vehicle
    Permits family, visitor and contractor parking
    Rent includes use of the parking space
    No parking penalties/charges
    No requirement for any permits
    Quiet enjoyment clause in the Agreement (Schedule 2 Clause 1 – Obligation of the Landlord)
    No mention of any regulations or any other mechanism for varying the Agreement.
    Definite Notice procedure in the Agreement not observed and no prior or other notification received as complies with the Notice procedure in the Tenancy Agreement i.e. as to the
    Proceedings to be brought in Birmingham.
    Requirement for Notice for any issues under the tenancy Agreement.

    2.3 When I found the parking ticket attached to my vehicle on XX/07/16, I was accompanied by my daughter (Tenant) and her friend XXXXXX XXXXXXX and both witnesses have provided written Witness Statements.

    2.4 The alleged parking infringement as detailed on the parking ticket did not make any ‘sense’; none the least because of the Rights granted by my daughter’s Tenancy Agreement and the forbidding wording of the single car park sign. If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking i.e. to prevent acts of trespass, as is a matter concerning the law of Tort of Trespass and this is not a contractual matter.

    2.5 With reference to the Data Protection Act, I am concerned about my providing the Claimant with a copy of e.g. my daughter’s Tenancy Agreement for any purposes. It is a document that is Confidential to the Landlord and Tenant as parties to that Agreement and if the Claimant had been doing things properly, they ought to already have a copy and have a trail of contracts/Leases/Tenancy Agreement with every leaseholder and Tenant to the building. I should add that an unredacted copy of the Tenancy Agreement has already been provided to the Court with my N244 Application.

    2.6 Immediately on finding the parking ticket notice, the three of us carried out a joint inspection, a ‘survey’, of the ground level car park as having XX marked/designated individual parking spaces. We found that there was only one parking sign mounted on an internal wall and as being within the subject car park. There was no external signage to the subject car park i.e. on the vehicular access point from the street level public highway.

    2.7 The detail of parking signage is provided in documents that have already been provided to the Court with my N244 Application i.e. a non-redacted copy of the Tenancy Agreement, the copy of my submission document to the Independent Appeals Service and the accompanying schedule of photographs. The Claimant already has the two documents as relating to the Parking appeal (August 2016). as having been a Party to that parking Appeal.

    2.8 The wording of the single parking sign did not make any sense and is confusing. The wording of the single parking sign is shown below

    “XXXXXX LTD
    This site is managed an operated by XXXXXXXXXXX
    PRIVATE LAND enforcement in operation 24 hours
    Parking is permitted for:
    (images)
    Vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within their front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay.
    By parking or remaining at this site otherwise in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms
    (IMAGE) You agree to pay consideration in the form of a ‘parking charge’ in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue. This is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
    You will be liable for additional charges and any subsequent 24-hour period or part thereof that the vehicle remains or if it returns at any time.
    Failure to pay the charge may result in the vehicle’s keeper’s details being requested from DVLA.
    Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which the driver will be liable.
    Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted. Permits must be fully displayed in the windscreen. Disabled blue badges are not valid other than in parking spaces that are specifically marked for disabled use.
    Postal payments and appeals: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    PAYMENT LINE: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    ONLINE/VIEW EVIDENCE www. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    For more information contact XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX or
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

    2.9 Three key points arising here on signage: -

    2.9.1 The single parking notice sign was wholly inadequate for XX parking spaces (in breach of relevant Codes of Practice for having enough signs) The car park signage was wholly inadequate when the car park ticket was issued on XX/07/16.

    2.9.2 The numbers of signs were significantly increased between XX/07/16 and XX/08/16 when further photographs were taken by my daughter in the subject car park (and as this is detailed in the IAS parking appeal documentation).

    2.9.3 I would say to anyone who would say otherwise on the numbers of signs and date(s) of installation, that their evidence is false and inaccurate.

    I believe that the Claimant should be held to strict proof of evidence for the installation of every sign in that car park.

    2.9.4 The wording of the signage is unclear as to its meaning and/or operation.

    2.9.4.1 The wording of the single car park notice sign is thought to be uncertain in legal terms and as it does not make it clear whether the alleged infringement is a matter that concerns an allegation of Trespass under the Law of Tort – v - Breach of Contract? Only the Landowner can bring an action for Trespass under the Law of Tort and as would itself invalidate the Claim if the sign should be interpreted as seeking to address an act of Trespass.

    2.9.4.2 The wording of the signage is also ‘Forbidding’ and as meaning that the signage cannot give rise to a contract because it is forbidding of that action and as forbidding of contractual terms does not give rise to any contractual relationship at law. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim. Also, In Horizon Parking v Mr. J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.


    3 Invalid Claim

    3.1 I believe that the Claim has no validity or reasonable basis. I regard the claim as being spurious and a ‘% gambling ‘Robo-claim’ as seek to intimidate Tenants of residential property into paying unnecessary and unlawful parking charge penalties for what is in fact the lawful use of their own legally designated parking spaces. It is my belief that these ‘Robo-claims’ are being made as a cynical abdication of responsibility in terms of the distress, inconvenience and immense time spent dealing with the legal processes and proceedings by the Defendants of these type of claims and as is, I believe, to be part of the calculation of the ‘Robo-claim’. Accordingly, I view the Claim as also being vexatious and vindictive and to be an abuse of our Legal Court system; i.e. as I believe that the Claim is raised on and depends on things that are not being done properly.

    3.2 I take issue with all the Claim and the way the Claimant has been operating a car park ticketing operation at the subject property and as not, in my opinion, doing things properly and as is a Claim that has caused distress and wasted a great deal of time and caused stress and inconvenience to the Defendant and my daughter as being the Tenant to car parking space.

    3.3 The Defendant disputes the Claim in its entirety and all related/associated costs as claimed.

    3.4 I, the Defendant, challenge the Claim and request that it is struck out for the following additional Defence Arguments: -

    3.4.1 The Claim/the Particulars of Claim are deficient and as this is contrary to CPR because the Claim does not adequately explain or prove the contractual relationship between the parties AND the defendant should not be liable for legal costs or payment of penalties.

    In the parking claim case – XXXXXXXXXX Limited – v – XXXXXXXXXX (Case No XXXXXXXXXX – XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX County Court)

    This related to a Pay and Display car park on private land in XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and to which I was also the Defendant.

    This XXXXXXXXXX Parking case was ‘struck out’ in August 2017, it would appear, because the claimant was unable to produce evidence of a ‘contract’ by reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and with myself as the Defendant.

    3.4.2 The £100 charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. By reference to relevant case law, I understand that the Claim, for a what is described as a parking charge, is inaccurate as the monies are being Claimed for what I believe to be a ‘penalty’ and not a ‘charge’. Lord Hodge is reported as stating in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 that “the test is whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the innocent party’s interest in the performance of the contract. A clause fixing a level of damages payable on breach will be a penalty if there is an extravagant disproportion between the stipulated sum and the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the breach”.
    It is my belief that on Claims relating to parking on private land that any Claim for a charge is invalid and as only a claim for economic loss (if any) should apply, if at all and as the amount claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Case ref - UKPC v Mr Aziz, Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson and in Parking and Property Management (UK) V Bull B4GF26K6 [2016] it was considered that the question of whether a parking claim was a charge or a penalty was academic when the claim had been invalidated for there not being a ‘contract’.

    3.4.3 Right to Operate a Scheme and as having a Contract with and the Authority of the Landowner to do so. The claimant has not produced evidence of a valid contract with the landowner and/or leaseholders for operating the parking permit scheme: -

    3.4.3.1 Parking schemes are/can be set up by e.g. a management company, and not the actual landowner.
    3.4.3.2 However, I question what right the Claimant had to set up such a scheme on land that they do not own.
    3.4.3.3 By asking to see the contractual trail between the parties I think that I need to be sure that there are no ‘gaps’.
    3.4.3.4 I ask for a full unredacted copy of any agreements that provide evidence that the Claimant has lawful authority to operate on land with traceability all the way back to the landowner.

    3.5 The use of the parking space concerns the legal principle of ‘Primacy of Contract’ that is conferred by the terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement (i.e. that was in operation as at XX/07/16). Clearly, the action of a Claim for breach of contract is contrary to the terms of the Tenancy Agreement.

    • In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

    • In UKPC v Mr Aziz, Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson - It is reported that Mr Aziz visited a residential block and parked with full permission of the tenant. He received 2 parking charges of £100 each, which resulted in a £400 claim.

    Mr Aziz contested the claim on the basis that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that UKPC did not have authority to issue charges as he was parked with the permission of the tenant.

    On the second hearing, DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis that UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges. She also followed the lead of HHJ Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E and ruled that Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases (i.e. in terms of the Claim for payment being a ‘charge’) because it was considered that residents or their visitors would not agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in spaces that they ‘owned’. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and was therefore a penalty and not justified.

    • In Pace v Mr. N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    • In Link Parking v Ms. P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    3.6 The wording of the single car park notice sign is thought to be questionable as to its meaning’ and as it does not make it clear whether the alleged infringement is a matter that concerns an allegation of Trespass under the Law of Tort – v - Breach of Contract? Only the Landowner can bring an action for Trespass under the Law of Tort and as should itself invalidate the Claim if the sign should be interpreted as seeking to address an act of Trespass.

    3.7 The wording of the signage is also ‘Forbidding’ and as meaning that the signage cannot give rise to a contract because it is forbidding of that action and as forbidding of contractual terms does not give rise to any contractual relationship at law.

    3.8 In summary, the Claim is that a contract was created owing to the provision of a parking signage. It is the Defendant’s defence and statement that I believe that there was no contract created because of ‘primacy of contract’ created by the terms of the said Tenancy agreement and because the car parking signage was wholly inadequate.

    I don’t believe that the claim for a contract survives these two initial points concerning the lack of a contract but in my view, there are other serious and fatal deficiencies with the Claim as including: -

    i. The authority of the landowner to bring the Claim is in question and it is my understanding that if the Claimant purports to operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by themselves, then the Claimant must supply me with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish themselves as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish themselves as a person who is ‘able’ to recover parking charges.
    ii. The signage is ‘forbidding’ and hence uncertain.
    iii. The claim for a ‘charge’ amount is regarded as being a Claim for a ‘penalty’ amount and is not a genuine ‘pre-estimate of loss’.
    iv. The particulars of Claim are considered to be vague and provide insufficient justification for the Claim having been pursued. The particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

    3.9 For these reasons, I regard the Claim as spurious, inaccurate, misguided, unfair, unreasonable and vexatious and propose that it be ‘struck out’ and as because I believe that there is ‘no contract’ and as I consider that the Particulars of the Claim do not explain the allegation of a contract. I also have concerns that the Claimant has probably improperly accessed my DVLA Personal Data regarding ownership of my vehicle, in breach of the Data Protection Act.

    The Defendant claims additional costs for attending hearings (time off work) and for my preparation of the Witness Statements and as because I believe that it is reasonable that, as I am not legally trained, I cannot be expected to incur additional costs for professional legal advice.

    4.0 The Defendant claims costs incurred and additional costs because of the nature of the Claim and as including: -

    I. Cost of the N244 Set aside payment £255
    II. All Costs of the Defence and Counter Claim £25
    III. Public transport costs to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Court £6.40
    (i.e. two visits by return XXXXXXXX tickets @ £XXXXX/ticket)
    IV. ‘Unreasonable costs’ - CPR unreasonable behaviour rule, 27.14(2). g.
    • Costs for time off work for hearings 2 x £95 = £190
    • 6 day’s preparation for Hearings 6 x £95 = £570

    Costs Total … £1,046.40 (provisional)

    The preparation for the set aside and of Witness statements has caused me significant loss of time, stress and inconvenience and I believe that the Claim is wholly unreasonable, and that the Claimant should pay for my time in attending hearings and for the many hours spent preparing my papers and evidence for the ‘Set Aside’ and Hearings.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

    Signed

    Dated






    This post has been edited by Mystified-one: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:22
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    anon45
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 06:58
    Post #13


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 1,063
    Joined: 7 Aug 2009
    Member No.: 31,007



    I think that, as a first step, you should ask the moderators to move this thread back to the 'live' forum from the 'Completed Cases Forum' so that more people see it.
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    Mystified-one
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 07:26
    Post #14


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 20
    Joined: 4 Jan 2018
    Member No.: 95,785




    RE: APPEAL - CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT (REDACTED) - ATTACHED.

    All personal details have been redacted for the Confidentiality of both parties to the Claim.

    The details on page 2 refer to some confusion in my original and limited defence as I had originally got the claim mixed up with another Court Claim on a different case with a different Operator (a claim that was struck out, incidentally) and the details on Page 2 had been dealt with at s previous 'set aside' hearing; so the details on Page 2 were not relevant at the main Hearing as I had already confirmed that I was the driver for the subject case.

    There was/is no signed 'Scheme' agreement with the Landowner - only with the Management Company to the property.

    The DDJ allowed the car park drawing as preferred evidence to that of myself and my two witnesses as having provided Written Statements into court on there being only a single car park sign (unfortunately neither of my witnesses could attend the hearing - but neither could the 'Claimant' appear in person and as having given false evidence on signage in Court).

    Further documents to follow - Can anyone assist me with my N164 form Appeal please?

    Attached File(s)
    Attached File  Claimant_Witness_Statement___Redacted.2.pdf ( 1.55MB ) Number of downloads: 27
     
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    Mystified-one
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:55
    Post #15


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 20
    Joined: 4 Jan 2018
    Member No.: 95,785



    QUOTE (emanresu @ Thu, 4 Jan 2018 - 18:50) *
    Which court and which PPC.

    It's unusual for a PPC to pay for a (baby) Barrister unless there was a lot of cash in it. How may tickets were there?


    Hi Emanresu

    To confirm - there was only one ticket on my case. Please see my modified postings with attachments.

    Also, there was one thing that I had noticed about the Claimant's agent, the Barrister and the administration of the Hearings schedule.
    The Barrister attended a Hearing that was immediately before mine in Court Room No 19 - presumably, as also representing the Claimant on that case (case no unknown).
    When that Hearing concluded the 'Defendant' (a lady and gentleman) emerged from the Court Room No 19 looking somewhat 'non-plussed' - but the Barrister did not come out for another 10 minutes or so.
    At that time, my Hearing was called by the usher for the adjacent Court room no 18 and the same barrister joined the Hearing.
    Why would the Barrister stay in the Court room 19 for 10 minutes or so, after the Hearing had finished, unless e.g. to have a post Hearing 'discussion' with the 'Judge'?
    The impression that had I got, was that the Hearings were arranged to be somewhat convenient for the Barrister, as a 'Claimant's agent' (I can't say for definite whether the previous Hearing in Room 19 was with a different Claimant?)
    I wondering what effect, if any, this potential 'familiarity' may have had on the conduct of my case?
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    Mystified-one
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 16:15
    Post #16


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 20
    Joined: 4 Jan 2018
    Member No.: 95,785



    My daughter's Tenancy Agreement contained the following Clauses:-


    (6) Definitions and Interpretation.

    6.1 Landlord means anyone owning an interest in the Premises whether freehold or leasehold entitling them in possession of it upon the termination of the Tenancy and anyone who later owns the Premises.

    6.15 Head Lease or Superior Lease means the document which sets out the promises the Landlord has made to the Superior Landlord. The promises contained in this head Lease will bind the Tenant if he has prior knowledge of those promises.

    Schedule 1 - Obligations of the Tenant

    3.3 to pay to the Landlord, or the Agent, all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Landlord or the Agent for the following:

    (includes) ... " the enforcement of any reasonable obligation of the Tenant under this Agreement

    (8) Use of the Premises.

    8.1 To use the Premises only as a private residence for the occupation of the Tenant and his immediate family.

    (16) Cars and Parking.

    16.1 To park a single vehicle only at the Premises.

    16.2 To park in the car parking space, garage or driveway allocated to the Premises, if applicable.

    16.4 To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.


    Schedule 2 - Conditions to be Kept by the Landlord

    1.Quiet Enjoyment

    1.1 To allow the Tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the Premises during the Tenancy without any unlawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightly claiming through or in Trust for the Landlord.

    Schedule 3 - General Conditions.

    (5) Notices - standard provision for the service of Notices.

    >>>>>>>>

    NB
    The DDJ agreed with the Barrister and as took the view that the Tenancy Agreement did not prevent the management company from operating a car park scheme and that the Landlord's covenant on Quite Enjoyment is qualified and as enables the Operator to run a parking ticket scheme - even though there is no formal Agreement with the landowner and there is no mention of parking permits being required under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement?

    The DDJ said that the Defendant/Defence could not rely on the Tenancy Agreement for Primacy of Contract even though the Agreement specifically refers to the Tenant's 'immediate family', visitors and contractors.

    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    4101
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 16:43
    Post #17


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 353
    Joined: 19 Dec 2017
    Member No.: 95,634



    You need to file an application for leave to appeal

    https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice....k/ex340-eng.pdf



    SECTION IV – INITIATING AN APPEAL
    4.1 An appellant’s notice (Form N161 or, in respect of a small claim, Form N164) must be filed and served in all cases. The appellant’s notice must be accompanied by the appropriate fee or, if appropriate, a fee remission application or certificate.

    4.2 Documents to be filed with the appellant’s notice: The appellant must file with the appellant’s notice–

    (a) three copies of the appellant’s notice and one additional copy for each respondent;

    (b) a copy of the sealed order under appeal;

    © where an application was made to the lower court for permission to appeal, a copy of any order granting or refusing permission to appeal together with a copy of the reasons, if any, for allowing or refusing permission to appeal; and

    (d) grounds of appeal, which must be set out on a separate sheet attached to the appellant's notice and must set out, in simple language, clearly and concisely, why the order of the lower court was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity (Rule 52.21(3)).

    4.3 Applications in the appeal: Any application to be made in the appeal (for example, for a stay of the order of the lower court, or for an extension of time) should be included within the appellant’s notice. Any application for a transcript at public expense should be made within the appellant’s notice.

    This post has been edited by 4101: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 16:44
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    southpaw82
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 17:06
    Post #18


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 28,255
    Joined: 2 Apr 2008
    From: Not in the UK
    Member No.: 18,483



    QUOTE (Mystified-one @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:55) *
    Also, there was one thing that I had noticed about the Claimant's agent, the Barrister and the administration of the Hearings schedule.
    The Barrister attended a Hearing that was immediately before mine in Court Room No 19 - presumably, as also representing the Claimant on that case (case no unknown).
    When that Hearing concluded the 'Defendant' (a lady and gentleman) emerged from the Court Room No 19 looking somewhat 'non-plussed' - but the Barrister did not come out for another 10 minutes or so.
    At that time, my Hearing was called by the usher for the adjacent Court room no 18 and the same barrister joined the Hearing.
    Why would the Barrister stay in the Court room 19 for 10 minutes or so, after the Hearing had finished, unless e.g. to have a post Hearing 'discussion' with the 'Judge'?
    The impression that had I got, was that the Hearings were arranged to be somewhat convenient for the Barrister, as a 'Claimant's agent' (I can't say for definite whether the previous Hearing in Room 19 was with a different Claimant?)
    I wondering what effect, if any, this potential 'familiarity' may have had on the conduct of my case?

    I'm not sure why you think the ten minutes the barrister spent in the court after the previous hearing is ominous. Tidying up papers? A convenient spot to get the paper for the next case out? Suggesting that there was some collusion between the barrister and the judge is pure unwarranted speculation, considering you have no evidence, let alone proof. No doubt the hearings were arranged for the barrister's convenience - that is standard practice.


    --------------------


    Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    Korting
    post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 17:46
    Post #19


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 977
    Joined: 13 May 2010
    Member No.: 37,524



    One thing you haven't told us is whether costs were awarded against you and what the sum of those costs are.

    AFAIK and I may stand to be corrected, you cant claim legal costs for a County Court case, so how could it be worth the claimant employing a barrister.
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post
    Mystified-one
    post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 11:14
    Post #20


    Member


    Group: Members
    Posts: 20
    Joined: 4 Jan 2018
    Member No.: 95,785



    QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 17:06) *
    QUOTE (Mystified-one @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:55) *
    Also, there was one thing that I had noticed about the Claimant's agent, the Barrister and the administration of the Hearings schedule.
    The Barrister attended a Hearing that was immediately before mine in Court Room No 19 - presumably, as also representing the Claimant on that case (case no unknown).
    When that Hearing concluded the 'Defendant' (a lady and gentleman) emerged from the Court Room No 19 looking somewhat 'non-plussed' - but the Barrister did not come out for another 10 minutes or so.
    At that time, my Hearing was called by the usher for the adjacent Court room no 18 and the same barrister joined the Hearing.
    Why would the Barrister stay in the Court room 19 for 10 minutes or so, after the Hearing had finished, unless e.g. to have a post Hearing 'discussion' with the 'Judge'?
    The impression that had I got, was that the Hearings were arranged to be somewhat convenient for the Barrister, as a 'Claimant's agent' (I can't say for definite whether the previous Hearing in Room 19 was with a different Claimant?)
    I wondering what effect, if any, this potential 'familiarity' may have had on the conduct of my case?

    I'm not sure why you think the ten minutes the barrister spent in the court after the previous hearing is ominous. Tidying up papers? A convenient spot to get the paper for the next case out? Suggesting that there was some collusion between the barrister and the judge is pure unwarranted speculation, considering you have no evidence, let alone proof. No doubt the hearings were arranged for the barrister's convenience - that is standard practice.


    I never said 'ominous' - I was unaware that arranging cases for the personal convenience of Claimant's agents is the norm.
    If the '10 minutes' was spent with the same DDJ as on my case then that might in some way explain the lack of introduction of the agent in the Hearing?
    Go to the top of the page
     
    +Quote Post

    3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
    Reply to this topicStart new topic
    1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
    0 Members:

     



    Advertisement

    Advertise here!

    RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 20th July 2018 - 10:39
    Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
    Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.