Court papers from Trethowans

[fedup74]

Court again soon- judge made him name the driver:!:

 

I take it the argument now is, if they are going down the trespass route, they can only claim for damages?

 

Just hope it's not the same judge again cos he ain't gonna be pleased that we wasted time by not naming the driver straight away!

[crem]

why did the judge make you name the driver in the first place?

 

If Trethowans had brought the case against the wrong person last time (ie the RK not the driver) then the case should have been dismissed there and then.

[Tony P]

why did the judge make you name the driver in the first place?

 

Could it have been to satisfy himself the Driver was not the RK i.e the Defendant, who therefore has no case to defend?

 

And, if so, could the Driver identity be provided (via sworn affidavit?) to the Judge alone, to satisfy himself on this, without revealing the Driver identity to the Claimant?

As there is no legal obligation under any Statute to provide the Driver identity outside the Police/LAs, surely the Judge should understand and respect this.

 

 

All questions I am afraid, but possible avenues of thought. Over to others with better knowledge....

Edited March 19, 2012 by Tony P

[fedup74]

Being a bit cagey here but don't want prying eyes guessing who I am before court!!

 

Basically their solicitor and the judge didn't believe he didn't know who was driving- the evidence proving my partner wasn't driving couldn't be submitted as it wasn't signed in front of the court. I know he didn't have to name the driver but my partner pooped himself and squealed!!

 

Service was dispensed with as the driver was at the court:wink: so that's where it's up to.

[Tony P]

Being a bit cagey here but don't want prying eyes guessing who I am before court

 

Totally agree.

 

Please keep in touch via PM with known posters who understand Court procedure and niceties better than I.

Let the rest of us know here as things proceed but only with your sensible caution.

[dx100uk]

on aside note:

 

this HFC CCJ , start a post in the HFC forum.

 

90% of HFC debts were PPI/PENALTY charges top heavy

 

and usually attained by TBI via the backdoor route

we might be able to help

 

dx

[fedup74]

Oh well back from court and lost the case:-(

The judge said as they produced evidence of their losses ie the employment of staff, stationary etc etc judgement was for the claimant.

 

On the plus side their solicitor asked for all sorts of silly costs like a witness expense, petrol and parking fees and the judge said no!!

 

Absolutely gutted and to top it all off come outside and my dad had a parking ticket!!

 

Thankyou to all who have supported especially Alexis and Esmerobbo- I'd have been lost without you both:-)

[fedup74]

Hi dx100uk- did have a thread for HFC- there was PPI and charges and we went through the FOS- the PPI was paid back onto the outstanding balance and he got the interest back!!

 

They have got a charging order we're paying back monthly (the same amount we were paying on the debt management plan) so they haven't gained any extra money- just got security on it now!

[esmerobbo]

What nonsense the staff are there anyway as they use security? Glad they did not fall for the expenses malarkey but I do wish they would get savvy with this contract lark! The only reason they had a cost is because they were pursuing something that was not due!

 

Liverpool County court do seem to have a problem with these cases!

[fedup74]

Tried to pm you esmerobbo but your inbox is full!!

 

Bit more detail -

 

Their solictor introduced herself and said we agree that penalties are unenforceable by law. She asked if I had filed a defence as they didn't have a copy and that she would recommend to the judge that no defence had been filed. I told her I was relying on the defence that had already been submitted- the only difference was some parts related to the registered keeper not being the driver- the points of law were the same. She said she would oppose this to the judge and then asked me about other parts of my defence. I told her I would rather answer her questions in front of the judge and she said she would tell the judge that she had spoken to me and I wouldn't co-operate!! So I told her a couple of things but left others out!!

 

Gets in the court and she tells the judge no defence been submitted- I come back at her and said you were happy enough to stick with the same claim and not re-issue it- the judge agreed with me. It was quite funny cos she kept saying I'm grateful sir- he said "I'm sure you're not"!!!

 

They said I'd parked in an ambulance bay and showed pics of 7 or 8 ambulances parked up (as esmerobbo knows there are bays to the side of the ambulance bay that are normal bays) The judge agreed with them that it was parked in the ambulance bay cos their solicitor said my car was blocking the ambulance sign (load of rubbish)

 

I then got the chance to ask them questions and I asked what losses they incurred- they said cameras to take pics, stationery, plastic for their fixed penalty notices the employment of 4 people to monitor the car parking situation, solicitors costs. I asked how the price could double in one day and she came back and said once the ticket hadn't been paid within 14 days they send a letter to the solicitor which costs £35.

 

Their security manager said they are running at a loss with their car parks and chasing tickets so the minutes of the board of governers meeting which stated penalty charges and the possibility of an improved revenue were disregarded by the judge.

 

Their solicitor actually turned OB Services v Thurlow against me as she said they lost because they hadn't proved any losses whereas Aintree could.

 

The judge agreed that they had suffered losses as a result of people parking and breaching the contract. There were a lot of other things said but these are the main ones.

 

It came to costs and she asked for her fee then £50 for her witness fee- the judge said no- he works for the nhs and is doing his job- he's not out of pocket. She asked for petrol and parking charges and he said no then she tried to claim charges for me not admitting it was me driving in the first place (can't quite remember the word she used- messing them about basically) but the judge shot her down over that too.

 

On the plus side I don't have to pay the £160+ in one go the security manager said I could pay over so many months!!

 

So I am now gonna drown my sorrows with a cup of tea and some lemon cake!!

[give them FA]

You should appeal that. One of the landmark cases (Excel v Hetherington-Jakeman) was lost at the first hurdle, but the senior judge who heard the appeal was sharper and recognised the arguments. You, unfortunately seem to have had a judge who failed to see the wood for the trees.

[underdog13]

Sorry to hear about your troubles, Fedup. Are you going to appeal?