Tuesday, 4 August 2015

Preliminary hearing - 11 DEAL cases in Birmingham

DEAL v Various. DJ Lamb, Preliminary hearing, Birmingham Court 4/8/2015

The Prankster's previous post on this matter was incorrect, as this was not a 'big DEAL'. Today's hearing turned out only to be a preliminary hearing for DJ Lamb to investigate 11 cases where DEAL are claiming monies owed for car parking contraventions in Co-op car parks pre Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Most defendants were represented by the BMPA, with one having their own representative. Many of the defendants had found Gan's defence on pepipoo, which formed the main legal defence points. Many defendants also had factual defences, such as not being in the car park. One defendant had one of the famous 'late discontinuances' from DEAL, but attended anyway and asked for costs, which were not opposed.

The DEAL representative objected to the BMPA lay representative, but this was overruled by the judge when reminded of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 The Prankster recommends all lay representatives take a copy of this into court.

The claims have all been adjourned pending the Supreme Court's judgement in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, and the BMPA rep is to discuss with the parties if it might be suitable for a single test case to determine the legal issues in advance of the final hearing of the factual issues. The parties will therefore write to the court with proposed directions after the stay.

The case will also be heard after the criminal case against CEL and DEAL in Aberdeen, which has its next hearing on 8 August.

The Prankster recommend  that this case be cited in all DEAL defences, and that a stay pending Beavis be asked for. A sample case reference (of the 11) is A84YP341.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999

    ORDER not Act

  2. Obviously the DEAL representative would be concerned that the BMPA lay rep knew more about the subject than he did!

    1. Can you just imagine the massive number of cases going to court if Beavis loses his appeal?
      It'll clog the system to breaking point. All the cases since the introduction of PoFA will be the 1st ones to get attention, then it'll stretch back 6 years for others.
      It'll be like a hunting party after the last surviving squirrel.
      If the SC wants to effectively clog the court system to a virtual standstill they know what to do.