ES Parking Enforcement v Ms D. C9GF3C2J. Manchester 2/2/17
Ms D's vehicle was parked at the well-known Spinningfield scam site on Left Bank.
There, the double yellow lines disappear for several yards, trapping motorists into thinking they can park there. The signage to say they cannot is hidden away on the other side of the road and facing away from the driver.
Ms D, who was not the driver, was therefore of the opinion that when ES Parking Enforcement sent her a charge notice it was not valid. ES Parking enforcement disagreed and took her to court.
Gladstones Solicitors sent in their usual incompetent particulars of claim and template bundle.
One day before the hearing ES Parking Enforcement chickened out, and emailed a notice of discontinuance. Ms D phoned the court to see if they had a record of the notice but they said the court case was going ahead. She therefore contacted The Prankster.
The Prankster said she must turn up anyway as the claim is still going ahead, but to take a copy of the rules on costs, and ask for her lost wages under rule 27.14(2)g for unreasonable behaviour. It is obviously unreasonable to discontinue the day before a case because then the defendant has no chance to unbook a day off from work.
Ms D went to the court this afternoon and was told that the Notice of Discontinuance was filed and she could leave. She told the usher that when she contacted the court yesterday she told she should still attend. The judge therefore decided to speak to her. After some deliberation he ordered that ES Parking Enforcement Ltd pay the sum of the wages that she had to take as holiday today.
Ms D confirmed to The Prankster she was very happy with this.
Costs in the small claims are strictly limited. Rule 27.14(2).e allows payment for loss of leave. Costs are not normally payable if a case is discontinued. However, rule 27.14(2)g allows any costs to be paid if the judge rules one party behaved unreasonably.
ES Parking Enforcement, you've been Gladstoned!
The Parking Prankster