PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lost against Minster Baywatch :-(
Mincer
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 11:35
Post #1


New Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,582



Reel Cinema Car park, York.

PCN received showing my vehicle entering the car park and leaving 21 mins later, no payment made as I used to use the car park a lot and thought it was free after 8pm (it used to be). Fee was £1 for 12 hours overnight. Total costs incurred for non payment of the period 2.9p

PCN incorrectly addressed (mistake in building name spelling).

£60 PCN ignored, £100 PCN ignored, Letter from Gladstones with charge for £150 ignored.

Letter from Northampton Court. Defence filed online.

My defence was that the claimants evidence was obtained by illegally installed ANPR cameras of which there was no planning permission. It was retrospectively applied for.
PCN not correctly served (address incorrect and details obtained by illegal cameras).
No contract entered. Minster Baywatch not mentioned on the signage at the entrance, it states contract to park and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (same firm as Minster).

They took it all the way to court. hearing was today.

Despite the entrance signage not mentioning Minster Baywatch the judge deemed that the yellow signage around the car park was a sufficient contract I'd agreed to. The planning permission had been approved and backdated to the installation date.
Judge wasn't interested that the charges were grossly disproportionate to the actual costs incurred.

Claimant awarded £150, plus £75 solicitors costs, plus £25 court costs.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 11:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
4consumerrights
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 17:20
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,544



QUOTE (Mincer @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 12:35) *
Reel Cinema Car park, York.

PCN received showing my vehicle entering the car park and leaving 21 mins later, no payment made as I used to use the car park a lot and thought it was free after 8pm (it used to be). Fee was £1 for 12 hours overnight. Total costs incurred for non payment of the period 2.9p

PCN incorrectly addressed (mistake in building name spelling).

£60 PCN ignored, £100 PCN ignored, Letter from Gladstones with charge for £150 ignored.

Letter from Northampton Court. Defence filed online.

My defence was that the claimants evidence was obtained by illegally installed ANPR cameras of which there was no planning permission. It was retrospectively applied for.
PCN not correctly served (address incorrect and details obtained by illegal cameras).
No contract entered. Minster Baywatch not mentioned on the signage at the entrance, it states contract to park and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (same firm as Minster).

They took it all the way to court. hearing was today.

Despite the entrance signage not mentioning Minster Baywatch the judge deemed that the yellow signage around the car park was a sufficient contract I'd agreed to. The planning permission had been approved and backdated to the installation date.
Judge wasn't interested that the charges were grossly disproportionate to the actual costs incurred.

Claimant awarded £150, plus £75 solicitors costs, plus £25 court costs.



It would seem you rushed your defence and did not research this properly.

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 17:52) *
joined today and first post why post a losing case here. did you not know about this site before you had to go to court. I smell ppc patsy.


Why is it that if anyone posts they lost a court case, people immediately think the worst?


Court claims are won and lost daily and I would hazard a guess that many who lose do not bother to update their threads.

Yes motorists have more of a fighting chance with forum assisted et al cases but DJ Bingo can apply to any case..


Courtserve had a Minster Baywatch case today in York case number C8GF6V4R
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mincer
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 17:55
Post #3


New Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,582



Yeah that's me. I am the defendant not minster (as if i'd use the name mincer if i was)

I never thought they'd actually go this far, i wanted to test them as i've had 3 run ins with them before and they've backed down every time.

Saw someone posting a while ago about the ANPR cameras so thought i'd let you know the courts aren't i terestwd in them being illegally installed not that the signage at the entrance is inadequate.

Not my first post, couldn't remember my old login details.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 19:46
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,700
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Mincer @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 18:55) *
Saw someone posting a while ago about the ANPR cameras so thought i'd let you know the courts aren't i terestwd in them being illegally installed

Quite rightly, probably. The illegality doesn't go to the heart of the contract and as such shouldn't render it void (all else being equal).


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


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
Fredd
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 19:47
Post #5


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 6,846
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Mincer @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 18:55) *
Not my first post, couldn't remember my old login details.

Well make an effort, otherwise this thread is pointless (and you've ignored the Terms of Use).


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 21:26
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,744
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Mincer @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 12:35) *
£60 PCN ignored, £100 PCN ignored, Letter from Gladstones with charge for £150 ignored.


Advice to ignore changed in 2012. Shame you didn't do some homework when you received the PCN.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 04:57
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,756
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
Shame you didn't do some homework when you received the PCN.


QUOTE
Not my first post, couldn't remember my old login details.


It appears he or she did but got the idea that planning permission was a winner - which it is not. This is especially true for this site where they do have planning permission.

In any case, 21 minutes in a P&D without paying is just asking for trouble.


--------------------
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
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 19 Aug 2017 - 00:08
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



This goes to show (as we already knew) that a weak or ill-advised defence will still lose, despite the fact neither main parking forums (here or MSE) sees many losses at all, normally.

This thread is a timely warning to new posters, to be guided by the posters here and to act on advice, and come back, and show us the other side's WS and evidence. You say you had a thread under another username.

Is this your original thread (below)?

The poster there was informed by more than one poster that it was wrongly focussed, but then the thread ended, seemingly ignoring these comments:

- 'That [two criminal acts, ANPR camera & building consents] is likely to get you nowhere fast, in small claims with an average local Judge, I expect'

- 'You've buried your actual defence...Why not strip out all the stuff on planning to an appendix / skeleton and just go with the narrow version. A Witness Statement is about facts so the clearer they are the more the judge has to work on...In any case, if retrospective planning was given a judge may conclude they weren't unlawful in the first place. And what is the defence after that?'

- 'We havent seen their bundle...Maybe post it here for us to see? So your skeleton should be focused. At the moment its a mess for me to try to decipher.'


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...08598&st=40

Newbies can take heart, this is rare and what not to do - always keep your defence thread updated and certainly at the key stage of WS, evidence and pre-hearing.

The good news for newbies needing a defence is that just one forum-assisted case has been seen to be lost on MSE in an entire year, when coached by posters, and hardly any lost here either. Many of us post on both forums.

Haven't got exact numbers for here but have no reason to suspect people are not updating their threads, given that we know when people's court hearings are and return to the threads to wish them luck, then we push and reply and ask what happened until we see a court report, for those cases where the posters have stayed in regular touch - that is key.

So sorry to read of MB getting any money from any victim, but whether or not that linked thread was yours, others can learn from the gaps in this story and not allow gaps to happen in their own cases, nor to go off on ill-advised tangents when warned against it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 23rd February 2018 - 02:20
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.