What happens in court?

[Ericant62]

I have been assisting in a parking penalty claim for my M.I.L. She is 82, husband who was in car having a melt down at the time of parking is 99. M.I.L. parked outside markings of wheel chair bay as she was panicking, then forgot to move car. I want my day in court, the facts are not disputed. Pursuing an El Alamein tank commander who will be 100 if case goes to court is ridiculous. I have studiously ignored all communications apart from my offer of £10 to cover their costs. But what happens if it goes to court? Court costs?, will I have a chance to say my piece? If it goes pear shaped I can afford to pay fine + costs for my in laws.

[ploddertom]

Maybe tell us the whole story including any appeal you may have made on their behalf & who the parking company is.

[Ericant62]

Hi, thanks for your response.
Earlier this year my MIL 82 y.o. was taking my FIL 99 y.o. into town by tram She was entering the car park when my FIL became confused and agitated. In a panic she parked in a Blue Badge bay (they have a badge) but over the the bay line onto an adjacent hatched area. See attachment 2. The company was Easy Park. I have taken the case on from MIL as she has not been well and was having hospital tests.
I wrote to Easy Park offering £12.50 for their expenses. This was refused. I decided on no further contact until court time. I only wrote to Easy Park to tell them to correspond with me, not MIL. Easy Park has passed the case on to Debt Collectors who I am happily ignoring. The case is in the hands of Debt Collectors Plus attachment 3.
My grounds for not paying is that their was a medical reason MIL mis-parked (99 yr old FIL having a meltdown, he has severe memory loss so becomes confused at times). She took him out of the car into his wheelchair, FIL calmed down, but 82 yearly MIL forgot to move the car, and received a parking ticket. An apology from MIL should have been sufficient.
My FIL is 100 next month, a Major in World War II. He commanded a tank regiment that broke through German lines. My MIL is trying hard to keep him out of a care home in his last years. At 82 y.o.she takes FIL out 4-5 times a week, to get him out of the house.
So as I see no purpose in replying to Debt Care Plus, I am willing to go to court, just to annoy them. (I am also enjoying dragging this out, and can afford to pay fine + court costs if necessary). I want to tell the court that Easy Park should be more understanding and not prosecute an 82 y.o. for a small harmless infringement.
So if it goes to court, am I just summonsed before the judge? Do I need a solicitor? Will the debt company have a solicitor? In other wards what to expect.
Many thanks

[Ericant62]

Don't think I uploaded correctly for above post

[ostell]

So was this a windscreen ticket or a notice received in the post. If in the pist then post up a redacted copy of the notice received.

This is not a fine, just a mere invoice for an alleged breach of contract

Ignore DRP, they are mere debt collectors and can do nothing

[efpom]

1.So if it goes to court, am I just summonsed before the judge?
2. Do I need a solicitor?
3. Will the debt company have a solicitor? In other wards what to expect.

On 1. All hearings, of this type, are held in public - any member of the public can be present.
On 2. No, but the person being sued should be present and you should say (or ask the court's permission to do so if you do not have a right of audience in that court. in the county court, on the small claims track, there is no restriction on representation, but it wold be courteous to ask permission to address the court.
On 3 Who knows? but likely, in my view.

Do remember the following:
Claimant must send a letter before claim.
Claimant must issue proceedings.
Claimant must submit Particulars of claim.

On the evidence, you do not have a defence - what you have is a plea in mitigation, where the breach of contract was caused by attending to the urgent medical needs of your FILand when that had been attended to, the breach was cured.

The Supreme Court case, shortly put, removed the proposition in English law that liquidated damages aka penalty clauses should be a genuine pre estimate of loss in a contract where liquidated damages are a term of the contract and that a penalty clause in a contract does not require that actual loss be proved. It has been used by car parking companies to justify their penalty clauses, no matter what the circumstance of a particular breach is. That, in my view, is to misstate the law. It has never been the law in England, that efforts to preserve life are trumped by the law of contract.

[ploddertom]

Thank you Ericant62 for telling us the background story. I strongly agree with your stand and note Ostell has looked in - you are in good hands.

[Ericant62]

Many thanks for all respondents especially EFPOM