The small claims track can be a lottery, with judges ruling differently from day to day and court to court. Even the Prankster has lost one case (although this is currently scheduled for an appeal hearing and so no more will be said at the present time).
The Prankster heard today of the sad tale of a lady who lost her case against Premier Parking for a £100 parking charge.
Even though the lady had a strong case the parking company won. They enlisted the help of a barrister which is a bit like rolling out the Brazilian football team against Chippenham Town FC.
What is inexplicable is that the judge (as well as the £100 charge) also awarded £355 costs against the defendant. In the small claims track costs are strictly limited, and normally would be capped at £50 solicitor filing fee, £25 court filing fee and £25 court hearing fee. Extra costs are normally not allowed unless the defendant acted unreasonably, so to add another £255 is unusual.
The Prankster has seen the lady's defence, which is strong, contains elements which have won in similar cases and references to those cases. At the present time it is therefore not clear why the judge thought the defendant acted unreasonably or why she allowed the extra costs.
The moral of the story is to try and nip parking charges in the bud by appealing to the parking company and then POPLA, where correctly worded appeals currently always win if the charge is for breach of contract. If the case goes to court follow practice directions as closely as you can to avoid being accused of acting unreasonably. Finally, do your research on your local court. Some courts regularly rule in favour of parking companies, while others rule against.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Thanks for the post Parky, it's good to get a balanced view. Commiserations to the lady who lost.
ReplyDeletenothing much to lose on an appeal then. As long as it hasn't timed out that is
ReplyDeleteDo you know if she will be appealing the decision?
ReplyDeleteThis is quite disgraceful. This poor lady parked by her back gate but outside a designated bay. How can that be such a serious crime that it requires a £500 fine? She has been let down by the legal system because she was unable to present her case properly. From what sketchy details I have read I suspect that this case was winnable even with a barrister on the other side.
ReplyDeleteHello and thank you for your kind words.
ReplyDeleteAlex I will not be appealing as I will probably loose and incur another £455.
Terribly sorry to hear of your loss. Perhaps some of the big guns might offer their services if you decide to change your mind?
DeleteThat is a shame, Mr Prankster, could we all look at setting up a fighting fund to help LowProfile appeal this? I'd happily chip in £20 towards the appeal, and I'm sure others would also. If as Mr Prankster says the defence was very strong, then it's surely worth appealing. If only because of the costs - indeed, could the issue of costs be appealed on it's own?
DeleteLowProfile - was the Judge a senior one on the circuit?
Alex you are extremely kind.
DeleteThere is currently a thread on MSE started by another user regarding this blog and the response from Bargepole sums up why I should not be appealing. However I do appreciate your gesture. I'm really sorry I don't even remember the judges name so I don't know.
It's disgraceful, but not suprising given the poor state of the British legal system. I'd also chip in for a fighting fund. Might be worth hanging fire (as long as an appeal doesn't time out) for a result of the Cambridge test case.
DeleteScary that a judge doesn't know the law. He/She should be named and shamed.
ReplyDeleteQuestion. If a case goes to court, is it a good idea to turn up with loads of transcripts of previous cases which ruled in favour of the motorist?
ReplyDeleteMartin Lewis has replied to this now, there are currently two threads but it's likely they will be merged
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4967390
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4967391
huh ? how did my post land up here? I posted this on the other blog, very odd!
ReplyDeleteMy daughter has just lost in court to Premier Park. It was her against a barrister another solicitor and director of Premier Park. Despite having photo evidence of signs being put up after the event, no sign on entry to car park and a contract with area numbers added but not signed. The Judge did decide that the extra £50 added to each ticket was a penalty but she still had to pay £730 for 5 breaches £100 for each breach plus court fees. The judge just kept coming back to the fact she hadn't contacted them to try and sort it out! :(
ReplyDeleteI sympathise with you Julie Morgan. The decision sounds like it was blatantly wrong in law, as does the level of the costs awarded. It shows the lottery of small claims, and, in my view, with £730 on the line, the risk/ reward ratio favours appealing, since an appeal would have a strong prospect of success.
ReplyDeleteAn appeal would cost £120 for the appeal fee, plus c. £200 for the transcript of the appealed decision. You may also wish to pay a few hundred more for a solicitor, to maximise your chance of success. Of course, there is no absolute guarantee of success, and, if you do lose, you might end up having to pay even more in costs.
If your daughter does appeal, she would need to act quickly by lodging the notice of appeal within 21 days of the original hearing, and would still have to pay the £730 in the meantime unless a stay is granted.
Thanks James. I'm sure if my daughter had had legal representation she would have won. She did her best to put forward her case and I don't think she could bare the strain of doing it all again, plus we couldn't afford the costs. She's agreed to pay £50 a month to the blood suckers! I just wish we had found this site in time we would have certainly contested the charges instead of ignoring.
ReplyDelete