30th is the hearing

then your WS is not due till/by Friday you can email the court it too.

id be preparing your WS

theirs' is very easy to pull apart.

you'll win this handsdown if you do it right.

and then ring the court Thursday and see if they've paid the FEE.

they did say in that email they sent to me, what they filed to the court

(witness etc, pics of ntk and signage which i have attached in the above post).

Does this mean that they still might not have paid the fee then?

or is this there way of saying they paid it and were ready..

Well, just one look at the sign says all we need to know.

The sign is prohibitive therefore this should be a simple case of trespass to which only the landlord can claim against, not this silly company.

no could all be a ruse to make you wet yourself.

which is why we say never give email ad's.

it does not mean they have paid the fee just because they sent you a flippin email..

you cant by email anyway...think about it

oh and their WS is terrible!!

ok.. so what do i need to include in my written statement? (ive mentioned alot about the mispelling of the road surely this is a big thing as who ever the driver was of the vehicle at the time or whatever they are saying.. that road does not exist therefore i mean how can you there hmmm)

ok.. so what do i need to include in my written statement? (ive mentioned alot about the mispelling of the road surely this is a big thing as who ever the driver was of the vehicle at the time or whatever they are saying.. that road does not exist therefore i mean how can you there hmmm)

I would suggest not bothering too much about the spelling. Aside from that error, the location is right therefore a judge is likely to say that it's a minimum issue and ignore it.

ok, could you please help me to what to include in this statement maybe some bulletpoint that i could expand on, needs to be sent off tommorow

page 5 of their ws.

the agreement.

check each thing on it is correct

the person signing that namely Mr R S Makker IS the MD of the asha props uk and asha group

and that they are indeed the freeholder of that land.

on which Iceland do indeed give their permission for speculative invoice to be issued etc etc.

then keep going check every fact.

for asha properties according to companies house,

he is classed as a "secretary" and there is another person who is classed as a director

i dont know if this is significant in any way.

for asha group it shows him as a secretay also with another name who is classed as a director.

underneath all of that it says " MR R S MAKKER"

- Director (resigned)

he resigned from this role on the 29 december 2016.

and was appointed as secretary on 10 may 2013,

it just states on page 5 of their witness statement that his role in the company is managing director?? which is why i have brought this up...

although it says he is resigned,

when clicking on "people with significant control" it does come up with him and another person where it say...

Nature of control:

Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%

how do i find out if they are the freeholders?

looking at the PPM WS they have shot themselves in the foot with the reason for claim, namely unauthorised parking.

That makes it a matter of trespass and nowt to do with PPM, just the landlord.

The only reason they can claim money is becasue you accepted a contract to park and for whatever reasons you either breached that contract or you owe the money as a contractual sum.

They dont mention either of those points so they dont appear to have a reason for suing you.

As they are claiming that essentially you were prohibited from parking that cannot be an offer and acceptance of a contract leading to this action.

you need to ram that point home,

plenty of other cases to support this as well.,

see the Parking Pranksters blog and copy and quote a few with claim nimbers and court details.

likewise the uselessness of Elliot V Loake in a civil claims,

again quote case where this has been thrown out as showing keeper liability The POFA postdates that decision so is the binding legislation for creating keeper liability.

As for extra costs, that is why they claim £80 or so in the first place because their losses are zero so adding a bundle of unexplained costs on at the end is a false claim.

Also, the POFA limits any liability to just the contractual sum so any blurb about costs on the sign is only applicable to the driver.

even if he was employed by the company that would be enough so barking up the wrong tree.

Are they the freeholders is really the salient point.

Other than that what he does or doesnt do wont get you anywhere.

Now,

the real point is they haven't provided copies of any NTK

if you are saying it didnt arrive and thus how can they show it was compliant with the POFA if they dont bring it to court with their evidence bundle?

They have to prove their claim not you disprove it

you will need something to argue

the more you can rubbish them by saying they have failed to show any authority then the more likely what you do have will be accepted.

Still the main point is the signage not offering a contract to park and the claim not saying what it is about in terms of being money owed as a contractual term ( their best shout)

thus will be a fixed amount of £100 and they cant add unicorn tax afterwards just because they have written a letter.

read PE v Beavis and you will see that it differs in many respects and the Supreme Court limited its decisions to the set of circumstances prevailing at the time bearing in mind that PE paid a large sum of money to be there so commercial considerations would apply there

but as PPM dont pay for a licance then these considerations are less obvious.

they have produced a mock up of the signage,

you need to show the real signs and a plan of where they were situated along with other details such as how many, their relationship to the entrance to the land

( are they visible and legible from the public highway when entering the site)

how many signs, are there any other signs that differ from their evidentail one etc.

ok so, for asha properties according to companies house, he is classed as a "secretary" and there is another person who is classed as a director i dont know if this is significant in any way. for asha group it shows him as a secretay also with another name who is classed as a director. underneath all of that it says " MR R S MAKKER" - Director (resigned) he resigned from this role on the 29 december 2016. and was appointed as secretary on 10 may 2013, it just states on page 5 of there witness statement that his role in the company is managing director?? which is why i have brought this up...

starting my statement now.. i rang the court to see if they paid the hearing fee.. which they have confirmed they have

so looks like they are ready! was hoping they would of

wouldnt*

dont forget, we need to see YOUR pictures of the signage and your plan/map/photographs of the site. Also note any street lighting etc, obstructions that would hinder the abolity to spot a sign offering you a contract etc. These will be referred to in your WS and accompany that in your evidence bundle

dont forget, we need to see YOUR pictures of the signage and your plan/map/photographs of the site. Also note any street lighting etc, obstructions that would hinder the abolity to spot a sign offering you a contract etc. These will be referred to in your WS and accompany that in your evidence bundle

this is the sign and the site, there were more signs to the left of the site which you cant see in the picture. but placed on the wall as seen on the site

there is an office oppisite that site a different company which PPM had signs for but different building so i guess thats nothing to worry or include....

sign.pdf

site.pdf

It is difficult to judge where these signs were,

I know things have chaged between then and now but draw a map. and show the netrance and where the signs were/are.

No need to post this up, will progress on assumption that they are all the same and none on a defined entrance to the site.

It will be difficult to write your witness statemnt for you as there is much about this that we dont know but I will give you a few bullet points to include.

You must print off the reference material though, a couple of bits from the Parking Pransters blog to help you from July this year.

So start off by saying

"this is the witness statement of sssssss I am the defendant in the case of PPM v ssssssss claim ref:xxxxxxx"

then number each point you wish to make start with:

1)it is denied that any monies are owed by the defendant to the claimant.

2 the claimant's particulars of claim and witness statement are too vague to determine what is being claimed as far as the event goes and in what capacity the defendant is laible for any monies that may be due for what reason this sum has become due.

This is contrary to CPR 16.4 and I ask the court to summarily dismiss it.

Further to this the claim fails to identify how the claimant has a cause for action against the defendant as they say EITHER keeper or driver.

These are not the same and as PPM do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create a keeper liability the defendant asks for proof as to who was the driver at the time of the event.

Likewise the claim says parking charges but does not say whether this is a contractual sum or monies due as a result of a breach of contract.

The amount claimed does not tally with the contract offered (if it is indeed a contract) by way of the signage produced in their evidence bundle as this states a sum of £100 so it is unclear where the sum of £160 is arrived at.

This point has been made in the past in PPM v (keepr of vehicle) in case ref C7G75EN at WakefieldCC on the 20/7/17 where the claim was dismissed for the paucity of the quality of the claim and witness statement signed by the same person as in this case.

That case also determined that the signage offered here in the claimants evidence was inadequate and it was also unclear as to what the capacity of the defendnat on that action was as again, no keeper liabity in the matter and the claim was an abuse of process by PPM and Gladstones. (see paper 1 in evidence bundle)--- you then print out that blog entry

3) In Parking Eye v Beavis it was determined that a parking company must give a grace period to allow a person to enter the site, find somewhere to park, get out of the vehicle and read and consider the sigange and decide if they then wish to be bound by its terms.

This grace period is set by the BPA as being at least 10 minutes and as they are the principal Trade association for parking companies their minimum 10 minute grace period becomes the accepted code of practice for this.

The defendants vehicle was present for about 5 minutes, a time wll below the ACOP minimum.

This would make the parking event "de minimis" and not a breach of contract as it is determined that at that point no contract had been agreed.

4) There was no signage at the entrance to the land to indicate that you were being offered conditions to park if you entered that land from the public highway. This then makes the small signs on the walls of surrounding buldings and at the rear of the site unclear and inadequate as there is no clear indication as to what land is covered by any agreement and the siting of the signs means that they are easily overlooked.

It is therefore denied that there was offer and acceptance of anything by way of this signage as the driver didnt notice them.

5) The signage itself is not an offer of a contract but a notice taht parking is for permit holders only.

This effectively prevents others from being offered a licence to park by way of an offer and consideration of a contract and thus anyone else would be trespassing as they do not have a permit that gives then licence to park.

The signage then continues by saying that persons who are not allowed to aprk will owe the parking company £100 for doing so.

This is not a genuine offer to park as it contains no detail of how to obtain a permit or any other condition regarding authority to park so it is a penalty charge that is clearly set to deter people from aprking there and is thus unlawful and unenforceable.

Again this was commented upon in PE v Beavis and is covered by the case law of Dunlop v New Garage and Motor Co

6) The defendant does not believe that the person signing the witness statement as being true works for PPM so it is not possible for them to state truthfully they have knowledge of this matter.

This has been dealt with in Excel v Mr W (case ref C7DP8T7D) AT STOCKPORT cc 10/7/17 BY dj lDJ Lettall.

The witness statement was signed by an employee of the legal firm so could not have any knowledge.

That judge also commented on the lack of a basis for claim and the assumption of the driver and keeper being the same being incorrect (paper 2).

7) the claimant has failed to produce any evidence they have the necessary permissions by way of planning consent to erect their signs under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. As they are advertising signs and not informational signs exempt undser s1-3 then they need planning consent.

As they do not have that then the signage is there unlawfully and it is not possible to create a lawful contract when the offer of that contract is based upon criminality.

The driver cannot enter into a criminal compact even if they wished to so there can be no breach of contract as a result.

It doesnt matter that many local authorities do not enforce the regulations, the law has been broken.

( print off copy of the advertising hoardings regs of the 2007 planning act pay attention to the later sections as they will try and claim exemption due to size or being informational. They are an advert as per Cahillv The carbolic Smoke Ball CO so look that up and print off as well.)

Now add this to whatever else you are thinking of and put it up here for comment.

You sign off the WS by sating that this is the truth as far as you know and sign it

before i post up my WS the attached picture of the site..

is literally it.

.. there is a main road and as you turn into a side road mainly residential houses on the right as you turn in was what used to be iceland and that picture is the car park!

there is not entrance or anything its just a pavement then that area outside of that building.

from the one picture there was about 3/4 of those signage on the building 2

i believe you can see in the picture not very clear,

but same way it is on the wall it was the same but too the left and one on far right

It is difficult to judge where these signs were, I know things have chaged between then and now but draw a map. and show the netrance and where the signs were/are. No need to post this up, will progresson assumption that they are all the same and none on a defined entrance to the site.

It will be difficult to write your witness statemnt for you as there is much about this that we dont know but I will give you a few bullet points to include. You must print off the reference material though, a couple of bits from the Parking Pransters blog to help you from July this year.

So start off by saying

This is the witness statement of xxxx I am the defendant in the case of PPM v xxxxx claim refxxxxxx"

1)it is denied that any monies are owed by the defendant to the claimant. The claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public or to make civil claims in their own name. It is the defendants belief that the claimant has no locus standi, Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Parking Eye Limited could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore there should be no charge. It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

2) the claimant's particulars of claim and witness statement are too vague to determine what is being claimed as far as the event goes and in what capacity the defendant is liable for any monies that may be due for what reason this sum has become due. This is contrary to CPR 16.4 and I ask the court to summarily dismiss it. Further to this the claim fails to identify how the claimant has a cause for action against the defendant as they say EITHER keeper or driver. These are not the same and as PPM do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create a keeper liability the defendant asks for proof as to who was the driver at the time of the event. Likewise the claim says parking charges but does not say whether this is a contractual sum or monies due as a result of a breach of contract. The amount claimed does not tally with the contract offered (if it is indeed a contract) by way of the signage produced in their evidence bundle as this states a sum of £100 so it is unclear where the sum of £160 is arrived at. This point has been made in the past in PPM v (keeper of vehicle) in case ref C7G75EN at WakefieldCC on the 20/7/17 where the claim was dismissed for the paucity of the quality of the claim and witness statement signed by the same person as in this case. That case also determined that the signage offered here in the claimants evidence was inadequate and it was also unclear as to what the capacity of the defendant on that action was as again, no keeper liability in the matter and the claim was an abuse of process by PPM and Gladstones. (see paper 1 in evidence bundle)

3) In parking eye v Beavis it was determined that a parking company must give a grace period to allow a person to enter the site, find somewhere to park, get out of the vehicle and read and consider the sigange and decide if they then wish to be bound by its terms. This grace period is set by the BPA as being at least 10 minutes and as they are the principal Trade association for parking companies their minimum 10 minute grace period becomes the accepted code of practice for this. The defendants vehicle was present for about 5 minutes, a time well below the ACOP minimum. This would make the parking event "de minimis" and not a breach of contract as it is determined that at that point no contract had been agreed.

4) There was no signage at the entrance to the land to indicate that you were being offered conditions to park if you entered that land from the public highway. This then makes the small signs on the walls of surrounding buildings and at the rear of the site unclear and inadequate as there is no clear indication as to what land is covered by any agreement and the siting of the signs means that they are easily overlooked. It is therefore denied that there was offer and acceptance of anything by way of this signage as the driver didn't notice them.

5) The signage itself is not an offer of a contract but a notice that parking is for permit holders only. This effectively prevents others from being offered a licence to park by way of an offer and consideration of a contract and thus anyone else would be trespassing as they do not have a permit that gives then licence to park. The signage then continues by saying that persons who are not allowed to park will owe the parking company £100 for doing so. This is not a genuine offer to park as it contains no detail of how to obtain a permit or any other condition regarding authority to park so it is a penalty charge that is clearly set to deter people from parking there and is thus unlawful and unenforceable. Again this was commented upon in PE v Beavis and is covered by the case law of Dunlop v New Garage and Motor Co

6) The defendant does not believe that the person signing the witness statement as being true works for PPM so it is not possible for them to state truthfully they have knowledge of this matter. This has been dealt with in Excel v Mr W (case ref C7DP8T7D) AT STOCKPORT cc 10/7/17 BY dj lDJ Lettall. The witness statement was signed by an employee of the legal firm so could not have any knowledge. That judge also commented on the lack of a basis for claim and the assumption of the driver and keeper being the same being incorrect (paper 2).

7) the claimant has failed to produce any evidence they have the necessary permissions by way of planning consent to erect their signs under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. As they are advertising signs and not informational signs exempt under s1-3 then they need planning consent. As they do not have that then the signage is there unlawfully and it is not possible to create a lawful contract when the offer of that contract is based upon criminality. The driver cannot enter into a criminal compact even if they wished to so there can be no breach of contract as a result. It doesnt matter that many local authorities do not enforce the regulations, the law has been broken.paper 3

( print off copy of the advertising hoardings regs of the 2007 planning act pay attention to the later sections as they will try and claim exemption due to size or being informational)THE WHOLE THING?? ITS 42 PAGES LONG​

Everything i have included in this statement i believe to be the truth, many thanks

XXXXXX

PAPER 1.pdf

PAPER2.pdf

paper 3.pdf

on point one you have cut and pasted something that is both wrong and not relevant, you have left the reference to PE in.

The reason I didnt challenge the authority to enter into contracts is they have signed up the landowner so starting off with somehting thst isnt true will seriously damage the rest of your evidence.

It is also not an appeal.

The only saving grace is the contract doesnt specifically mention taking legal action but that is implied.

To be honest you have been lazy in your approach to this and if you dont start to understand what is required and be able to put across your defence coherently then you will get walked all over when they actually have no basis to claim a bean.

Get reading and understanding so you can answer questions on the day and thus beat off this nonsense.

If you havent posted this off scrub the changes you have made to point 1 and leave it as no contract.

The signage doesnt create one and that is what you need to get across.

sorry i just read it properly and was a stupid mistake in regard to PE.

i do need to read up more on this and i will definitely understand it and be more prepared before the day of court im not too good with this stuff but not any excuse.

This is the witness statement of xxxx I am the defendant in the case of PPM v xxxxx claim refxxxxxx"

1)it is denied that any monies are owed by the defendant to the claimant.

2) the claimant's particulars of claim and witness statement are too vague to determine what is being claimed as far as the event goes and in what capacity the defendant is liable for any monies that may be due for what reason this sum has become due. This is contrary to CPR 16.4 and I ask the court to summarily dismiss it.

Further to this the claim fails to identify how the claimant has a cause for action against the defendant as they say EITHER keeper or driver.

These are not the same and as PPM do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create a keeper liability the defendant asks for proof as to who was the driver at the time of the event.

Likewise the claim says parking charges but does not say whether this is a contractual sum or monies due as a result of a breach of contract.

The amount claimed does not tally with the contract offered (if it is indeed a contract) by way of the signage produced in their evidence bundle as this states a sum of £100 so it is unclear where the sum of £160 is arrived at.

This point has been made in the past in PPM v (keeper of vehicle) in case ref C7G75EN at WakefieldCC on the 20/7/17 where the claim was dismissed for the paucity of the quality of the claim and witness statement signed by the same person as in this case.

That case also determined that the signage offered here in the claimants evidence was inadequate and it was also unclear as to what the capacity of the defendant on that action was as again, no keeper liability in the matter and the claim was an abuse of process by PPM and Gladstones. (see paper 1 in evidence bundle)

3) In parking eye v Beavis it was determined that a parking company must give a grace period to allow a person to enter the site, find somewhere to park, get out of the vehicle and read and consider the sigange and decide if they then wish to be bound by its terms. This grace period is set by the BPA as being at least 10 minutes and as they are the principal Trade association for parking companies their minimum 10 minute grace period becomes the accepted code of practice for this.

The defendants vehicle was present for about 5 minutes, a time well below the ACOP minimum.

This would make the parking event "de minimis" and not a breach of contract as it is determined that at that point no contract had been agreed.

4) There was no signage at the entrance to the land to indicate that you were being offered conditions to park if you entered that land from the public highway.

This then makes the small signs on the walls of surrounding buildings and at the rear of the site unclear and inadequate as there is no clear indication as to what land is covered by any agreement and the siting of the signs means that they are easily overlooked.

It is therefore denied that there was offer and acceptance of anything by way of this signage as the driver didn't notice them.

5) The signage itself is not an offer of a contract but a notice that parking is for permit holders only.

This effectively prevents others from being offered a licence to park by way of an offer and consideration of a contract and thus anyone else would be trespassing as they do not have a permit that gives then licence to park.

The signage then continues by saying that persons who are not allowed to park will owe the parking company £100 for doing so.

This is not a genuine offer to park as it contains no detail of how to obtain a permit or any other condition regarding authority to park so it is a penalty charge that is clearly set to deter people from parking there and is thus unlawful and unenforceable.

Again this was commented upon in PE v Beavis and is covered by the case law of Dunlop v New Garage and Motor Co

6) The defendant does not believe that the person signing the witness statement as being true works for PPM so it is not possible for them to state truthfully they have knowledge of this matter. This has been dealt with in Excel v Mr W (case ref C7DP8T7D) AT STOCKPORT cc 10/7/17 BY dj lDJ Lettall. The witness statement was signed by an employee of the legal firm so could not have any knowledge. That judge also commented on the lack of a basis for claim and the assumption of the driver and keeper being the same being incorrect (paper 2).

7) the claimant has failed to produce any evidence they have the necessary permissions by way of planning consent to erect their signs under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. As they are advertising signs and not informational signs exempt under s1-3 then they need planning consent.

As they do not have that then the signage is there unlawfully and it is not possible to create a lawful contract when the offer of that contract is based upon criminality.

The driver cannot enter into a criminal compact even if they wished to so there can be no breach of contract as a result.

It doesnt matter that many local authorities do not enforce the regulations, the law has been broken.paper 3

( print off copy of the advertising hoardings regs of the 2007 planning act pay attention to the later sections as they will try and claim exemption due to size or being informational)THE WHOLE THING?? ITS 42 PAGES LONG​

Everything i have included in this statement i believe to be the truth, many thanks

XXXXXX

is it ok to leave it as what your typed out before i have scrubbed the changes i made to point one and obviously that is nonsense...

. if it is ok i need to send it off today.

also u mentioned print off copy of the advertising hoardings regs of the 2007 planning act pay attention to the later sections as they will try and claim exemption due to size or being informational) do i print of THE WHOLE THING?? ITS 42 PAGES LONG​

Take a copy to court with you then.

That way you can refer to which bit you are on about when asked.

A judge wont be spending half an hour looking through his law books for you.

No need to send a copy of that to the opposition.

they will comment on it as mentioned to try and claim their signs are exempt or informational.

Look back through the posts here and look for one about MANSFIELD as it has the relevant bit in it somewhere.

The council clobbered PE for not having PP,

another court case against PE went that way as well,

Parking Pranksters Blog of 2016 I think has the details

These things are what is called persuasive so that is why it isnt at the top of the defence,

some judges have interpreted the signs as exempt so we dont put all our eggs in one basket

do i need to send the witness statement to gladstones or is just the court ok?

what did the court directions say ?

dx

copy of WS and other evidence to Gladdys as well as court.

If you are taking reams of copies of for example the POFA and the Town and Country Planning Act to refer to then it is acceptable to just take one copy along with you rather than sending it to everyone.

do i need to send the witness statement to gladstones or is just the court ok?

ok thanks, bit worried now.. how will this go down, what kind of questions are they going to ask me ! :l