ArthurWankspittle wrote:Doesn't look right somehow does it? Especially the bold part having odd spaces and no full stops. It also doesn't make that much sense, the claimant was not there but their representative was heard? The result is a stay anyway, the claimant can get their act together and go back to court.
I suspect it was voice-dictated by an overworked and irritated District Judge. I have squinted at it closely and cannot see evidence of tampering, and it would be incredibly reckless to publish a falsified court order anyway. Certainly contempt, possibly fraud.
Parking Eye had stated (http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads ... evised.pdf
) that they would be represented only
by "our advocate from LPC Law
", however the Judgement indicates that this "advocate" was discovered to not have professional standing to conduct proceedings in the absence of the Claimant. This is not the first instance of these private parking companies playing fast and loose with the rules, and a familiar point of challenge for those who dispute their claims (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/right-of-audience/
My reading of the Judgement is that the Judge wasn't prepared to swallow it this time. S/he has rightly refused to allow the LPC representative to present their client's case. Meanwhile the defendant is cheerfully yapping on about his willingness to pay if only Parking Eye would send him an invoice. So the Judge has stayed the case for this to be resolved.
I do not think it is quite the victory that Beovat are claiming. If Parking Eye have any sense, they will now send the defendant a conventional business invoice. They cannot continue these proceedings without doing so, and the only other option is to give up and hand the defendant a victory to crow about. If they send an invoice (for only the original fine/charge) the defendant would be well-advised to pay it. He can then enjoy the stress and cost he has incurred to Parking Eye.
I suspect that in reality the defendant will not
pay the invoice, but will instead dispute some aspect of it's procedural regularity, by reference to arcane legislation. Parking Eye can then return to court with a qualified representative and the Judge's irritation will switch to the defendant. He will lose, and pay Parking Eye's costs.