correct

no to mediation

1 wit you

the rest is obv

3 copies

1 to court

1 to sols [minus phone/email]

1 for your file

you really need to get this images posted up so we can help you,

they will be part of your evidence bundle.

PO Box numbers are not enough for a right to issue invoices under the POFA.

That makes their access of the DVLA database suspect

so you will need to write to them and ask who has accessed your keeper details, when and why.

The DVLA will send a stock response saying that people are entitled to blah blah blah

but at this stage you are not complaining,

just demanding to know who etc.

A complaint will follow but that is a separate matter,

you need to info to show that the protocols of the POFA werent followed so they havent even sent a lawful demand and that is against Civil Procedure Rules which should get the claim struck out anyway ( it probably wont but will help if your other evidence is a bit thin as it damages their enormously)

_4f3edd630054e0e4_Documents_Office_Lens_24112017_1631_Office_Lens.pdf

_4f3edd630054e0e4_Documents_Office_Lens_24112017_1632_Office_Lens_1.pdf

_4f3edd630054e0e4_Documents_Office_Lens_24112017_1632_Office_Lens.pdf

_4f3edd630054e0e4_Documents_Office_Lens_24112017_1622_Office_Lens.pdf

they have the BPA logo on their sign when they are not members.

This means they have unlawfully accessed your keeper details.

As for the majority of the signs,

they are not offers of a contract so ignoring them is perfectly legal

and you can park there and risk the CHURCH suing you for trespass.

That is nowt to do with parking co's though.

Their other sign has the IPC logo and it is clear Gladdys are using that to show they have a big member to frighten the churchgoers with.

A complaint to the BPA with a copy of the offending sign will help your cause in the long run and a complaint to the DVLA as well.

Next you need to ask the council if UKCPM have planning permission for their signs under the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act.

Also, have you sent Gladdys a CPR 31.14 for sight of the contract between UKCPM and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in ther own name?

If not send that off asap as although they are loath to provide it when you submit your WS you can challenge their locus standi by lack of contract and that wil force them to put up or shut up

Not looking good for them I guess!

Will get those letters out to DVLA and the complaint to BPA should I expect a reply from both?

Also will contact the council for the signs.

CPR was sent off 3 weeks ago if not more. No reply at all.

Case has been transferred to the our local county court so waiting on further directions from that. How long typically is waiting time from now to the day in court? Just so I'm aware on time to prepare ws.

Cheers for the help so far.

dont expect a reply to the CPR 31,

you can use this to your advantage by stating theat you believe they have no contract

as they didnt provide when asked

and that will become the first thing they are asked about on the big day if it gets that far.

You now need to be thinking about what you are going to put in your WS

so a simple plan of the area with an indication of where the signs are.

I would make the plan cover the roadway that fronts the church on all sides

as well as there are council signs scattered about and including them wiill indicate how difficult it can be to determine what land the CPM signs actually refer to/blurring of boundaries etc.

Pictures to go with this also.

I dont know about the management heirarchy of churches so it would be worth investigating who has the authority to sign up a parking co, the local vicar, the Parochial Church Council, the bishop?

If the PCC ask them for the minutes for when it was decided to employ them.

Shouldnt be a secret, they have tax raising powers (whether used or not) so should be accountable.

Now, as said 3/4 of the signs arent contractual and if you look into invitations to treat you will see that should you decline to then consider the contract you are under no obligations.

For example,

you go into a clothes shop that has a sign outside saying 50% off most items.

You go inside and ask how much a shirt is and get told that it is not in the sale.

You have no right to insist on getting the shirt for hlaf price and the shopkeeper cannot make you buy anything just because you came in to ask/consider his offer.

By having signs that say you must consider some other offer the parking co's have not got as far as an offer of a contract so you dont have to consider and then either accept or reject that offer of terms you WISH to be bound to.

If there were only contractual signs you either accept the terms or go elsewhere.

In your case you were entitled to carry on ( bit lik browsing the store after not buying the shirt you first looked at)

Eventually you might be asked to leave but no-one can force you to buy anything or enter into the contract offered elsewhwere.

There are cases that were decided on this point so have a look at the Parking Pranksters blog and website for examples.

They become what are called persuasive cases,

no judge has to follow their outcome as binding but they should be persuaded that for reasons of consistency they count as leading them down a particular path.

Date set 2nd of Feb.

Other than as above to supply as a witness statement

would it work if I provided proof my wife owns another (better) car that's her main car?

Reason I ask is because she wasn't the driver of the Corsa at the time.

She's only the registered keeper because a family member is under 18 and can't be registered by law.

as the particular of claim state she was driving the car and failed to provide proof is all wrong.

Taking someone to court who's the wrong person is clearly the case here

The POFA allows the parking co's to create a keeper liability if certain conditions are met

owning another car or not being there wont make a difference IF UKPCM were relying on those conditions being met to create that liability.

Now,

as they aren't

their POC's are too vague to show a cause for action against her

( they say that she was the driver/keeper at the time when it MUST be clear in what capacity they are suing)

what may be of interest if proof she was elsewhere in her other shiny posh car rather than just owning one.

she had the option to name the driver but as this would be no better for your family

it is in her interests to state that she was NOT the driver at the time

if asked to say who was

she can say that it was someone under 18

so wasnt in a position to name then

but that doesnt change the law on liability (or lack of in this case).

BTW you can register anyone to be the keeper of a vehicle,

the law is too vague

so buy a car,

name the little old lady down the road as the keeper

she will get all of the parking tickets

Doesnt mean she is liable to pay them but it does complicate things

It would be interesting, in this case, if the driver had been named to UKCPM.

They'd have been on a bit of a sticky wicket trying to sue a 17 year old

the bandits would probably wait until they were 18 and then sue. Not legally improper but morally suspect.

the bandits would probably wait until they were 18 and then sue. Not legally improper but morally suspect.

You're probably right... But could a 17 year old have entered in to a contract in the first place? And of course, they probably would even know the drivers age until they'd wasted quite a lot of their money

So the notice of allocation to small claims track reads..

1. The claim is allocated to small claims track.

2. A preliminary hearing is required to enable the court to consider the directions which need to be made in this case because it may be possible to dispose of the claim at such a hearing, it appears from the papers that the defendant may have no real prospect of success at a final hearing.

3. The preliminary hearing will take place on the first available date with a time estimate of 20 minutes.

If notice giving details of the time and place of the hearing is not enclosed with this order, one will be sent to you shortly.

4. The claimant must deliver to the court office and to the defendant by no later than 14 days before the preliminary hearing a witness statement in support of the claim attaching all documents to be relied upon. Those documents must include a copy of the agreement (redacted if necessary to preserve commercial confidentiality) giving authority to regulate parking on the land in question.

5. Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (with fee) to arrive within 7 days of service of this order.

Is this the usual way for a court claim?

point 2, you get a letter into court asking for a strike out on procedural grounds,

ie rubbish POC,

not saying what the cause for action is against the defendant

as they dont use keeper liability

yet say driver/keeper who are 2 different people

so why are they suing the wrong one?

Also say the amount claimed is in excess of the supposed charge for breaching the supposed contract

so again under the POFA this amounts to an unlwful sum.

(as they can only claim against keeper under POFA

then they cant say other terms apply because they arent suing the right person for that)

that as the claimant is committing a criminal offence by breaching the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act no cintract cabn be entered into as it would be a criminal compact so no cause for action against anyone.

Ask for summary dismissal on the last 2 points to save time and costs of a full hearing

You're probably right... But could a 17 year old have entered in to a contract in the first place? And of course, they probably would even know the drivers age until they'd wasted quite a lot of their money

These idiots would go ahead and risk suing a minor.

point 2, you get a letter into court asking for a strike out on procedural grounds, ie rubbish POC, not saying what the cause for action is against the defendabt as they dont use keeper liability yet say driver/keeper who are 2 different people so whya re they suing the wrong one?

 

Also say the amount claimed is in excess of the supposed charge for breaching the supposed contract so again under the POFA this asmounts to an unlwful sum.(as they can only claim against keeper under POFA then they cnat say other terms apply because they arent suing the right person for that)

 

that as the claimant is committing a criminal offence by breaching the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act no cintract cabn be entered into as it would be a criminal compact so no cause for action against anyone.

Ask for summary dismissal on the last 2 points to save time and costs of a full hearing

As in point 4 with the request for the witness statement from the claimant

- that must include the agreement (assuming this is the "contract and terms")

I'm right in thinking the judge here is on top of them already?

Even though I sent the CPR off some time ago requesting this, I've yet to see it!..

this sounds like the main document that's likely to stuff them in this claim?

Ok I'll apply to strike out.

Any particular wording needed or just re-write up your points above?

Do I need a form to do this or is typed on normal paper fine.

Also how much is the fee for applying to strike out?

yes , most likely but be careful as they have been allowed to send in a redacted version and this may well have the name of the person who signed on hehalf of the landowner blacked out so you cant see that it was signed by someone who doesnt actually have any authority.

However,

the rest of the terms should be clear and that will probably be damning anyway.

look for dates,

limitations,

area of land covered,

authority to enter into contracts AND make civil claims in own name.

It is common for these bandits to say they are agents of landowner by the consent when this isnt true,

they may well not be authorised to start a fight.

Happend in the past at a hospital and the costs order went against the hospital, not the parking cowboys so again the detail is all

Surely if they sent in a copy of a contract with a name redacted that would render it useless?

Being I could challenge that no name is visable and could, as you say, be no one who's in any authority or even if a contract has even been signed?.

Food for thought.

should I wait to receive the papers on which they rely on in court to drop on my doorstep?

If they ever will that is - before applying to strike out?

dont overthink things,

this is a case management hearing where they have to show they have a claim.

You will have every opportunity to demand sight of the full contract if they get as far as a proper hearing and that is not certain.

No you dont wait to see what they send,

get your letter in because it is about procedure and cause for action, not their evidence.

Thanks EB. I'm going to be copying up a letter to send off tomorrow.

Is there a template that could be linked to get a better idea on wording it correctly?

Any fee to pay the court for strike out application and is this ok on normal paper just sent to the court, or is there an actual form specifically for this?

no form

no fee

no template

simply a letter which states what EB has stated in post 38

Cheers dx.

Oh and a happy New year to you all!

I've had nothing back from the court yet. Is this normal?

As the hearing date is set for begging of Feb I'm looking to type up the w/s ready to send in.

Should I be waiting as close to the hearing date as possible to get that in?

What would be the main factors to include on this statement that will bury them?

I've not as yet received a copy of the claimant w/s.

If you could offer any tips etc so I'm ready to tackle these crooks.

had a hearing date been set?

2nd of Feb I think without looking

usually a fortnight before the hearing all documents have to be exchanged.

What were the instructions of the court in the letter you got telling you of the hearing date?

Did you get a response from your CPR request?

did you send a letter asking for the claim to be struck out?