Jump to content


UkCPM/gladstones claimform - PNC St Michaels Church, Church Square, Basingstoke. *** WON - CASE DISMISSED ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2172 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

as EB says twice 14 days .

lots of WS's here already

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to say that for me to produce a fairly solid witness statement I need to see various documents they have.

 

I've not received anything from them despite asking twice

- once for proof of the offence and all the supporting docs notice to keeper etc..and the CPR request.

 

How am I supposed to put together a w/s if I can't see their evidence so I can rip it to shreds and sink them.

 

I'm looking into other w/s but as I've no documents again I'm struggling to put much together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good that's the way you want it.

 

no documents

they have no case

bugger and off to them m'lud

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

your WS will start off by claiming they aave failed to show locus standi as they have not produced sight of their contract with the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contract wiith the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

 

They have likewise failed to show a cause for action against you becasue they havent said why you owe the money,

whether it is for a breach of contract or for monies dus under a contractual term,

they havent specified why the amount claimed is now £xxx when if it was due under a contract the maxiumum amount you could possibly owe is £80 (100 or whatever the sign said) and point out that the POFA states that liability is only for the specified sum should they be claiming keeper liability even if the driver is liable for additional contractual amounts.

 

point out that the N1 claim form was the first you have heard of this and the claimant has failed to produce any evidence they actually issued any other paperwork and therefore they cannot rely on the POFA to create a keeper liability

( their paperwork will be duff anyway so they wont have done)

 

and that they have failed to identify who was driving at the time and therefore there is no cause for action against the defendant as the keeper and that for clarity you deny being the driver at the time.

 

you then say

IN ANY CASE and then go on about the signage, lack of an offer of a contract, multiple signs being contradictory, the signs not offering a contract in the first place, signs not applicable to where your vehicle was at the time etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing date is actually set for the 8th of Feb.

 

I'm correct in thinking all witness statements have to be served by Thursday this week to both court and gladstones?

 

I will draw up the statement and post up on here for you to check over it.

 

Had a call from the council to ask some questions.

 

She seems to think no planning would be required as the land is private property.

 

I await a full written email to confirm this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep Thursday

 

sounds like a council junior

doesn't understand the advertising sign rules

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like gladstones ws has turned up today.

I'm not at home right now so no idea what it contains other than my wife tells me it's about 10 pages long.

 

Will this change the locus standi?

If theres as much info anyone could throw at me before i spend the evening drawing up my ws now the better.. I will copy up theirs to post here later this afternoon.

 

Just having a look through some more witness statements on here.

I'm browsing at "parking help 1" further down the list of threads.

 

This witness statement seems to be clear on a fair few points related to mine.

Thus I'm taking would be ok to use as a suitable template to get mine ready?

 

Also as gladstones have left it to the last possible day to submit theirs

(keeping in mind I had nothing from them at all)

 

this has left me limited time to defend their claims in their ws.

 

Would I be frowned upon if my ws arrived a day or 2 past the 14 day deadline?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try your very best to get it to the court by close of play on Thursday. Whilst a LIP is given considerably more leeway by the courts, you really don't want to risk giving Gladrags any ammunition that they can use against you.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stop panicking you were warned they'd pull this stunt.

 

get it scanned up to one multipage pdf please

read upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also besides gladstones bundle I've received a letter from the court as follows;

 

"with reference to the above case and following your letter dated 4th jan please note your letter will be placed on the court file pending the forthcoming hearing on the 2nd March 2018.

 

With regards to your request for the matter to be summarily struck out,

a request of this nature will require a formal application on form n244 with a few 225.00, unless you are eligble with help with fees.

 

If you choose not to file an application then you will be at liberty to raise these issues with the district judge at the small claims hearing on 2nd of March.

 

Have I missed a point here? The 8th of Feb.. is that not the court case? I'm lost here

Link to post
Share on other sites

get your WS sorted but scan theirs up first please

ALL OF IT to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a quick look at your docs.

 

The initial contract states that permit holders must show their permits while non permit holders need not show a permit [well, duh].

Non permit holders are allowed to park for 5 minutes and two minutes is de minimus in view of the fact that you would need time to drive to the parking spot you chose, manoeuvre your car into the spot, read the parking signs and decide whether to park there or not.

 

I note that if their Witness Statement is correct [and they tend to be a tissue of lies] that there appear to be no notices at the entrance to the car park.

They have marked where their Notices are-so have you checked that they are still in those same positions since that would call into the veracity of the Witness Statement.

 

I note that you said that some of the signs could be hidden behind parked vehicles so that should be mentioned by you.

 

In addition you show two parking notices - the first states that the charge is £100 , the other only £90.

 

The contract was dated in 2008 but that doesn't mean that it is still in force today.

Have you checked with the Church to confirm it is still valid?

 

There is no confirmation from the Council that their Planning dept has authorised the use of advertising hoardings in the Church grounds which probably means that there is no permission making the signage illegal and therefore there can be no contract with you as a result.

 

I have had a quick look at your docs. The initial contract states that permit holders must show their permits while non permit holders need not show a permit [well, duh].

 

Non permit holders are allowed to park for 5 minutes and your ticket has you timed at seven minutes from the time you entered the carpark till the ticket was issued.

 

Two minutes is de minimus in view of the fact that you would need time to drive to the parking spot you chose, manoeuvre your car into the spot , read the parking signs and decide whether to park there or not. There is no mention on their signage that you are allowed to park for 5 minutes.

 

I am assuming you are not a permit holder so the claim against you should be that you exceeded the time limit not that you were not displaying a permit.

 

I note that if their Witness Statement is correct [and they tend to be a tissue of lies] that there appear to be no notices at the entrance to the car park.

 

They have marked where their Notices are-so have you checked that they are still in those same positions since that would call into the veracity of the Witness Statement.

 

You said that some of the signs could be hidden behind parked vehicles so that should be mentioned by you.

 

In addition you show two parking notices-the first states that the charge is £100 , the other only £90.

 

The contract was dated in 2008 but that doesn't mean that it is still in force today. Have you checked with the Church to confirm it is still valid?

 

There is no confirmation from the Council that their Planning dept has authorised the use of advertising hoardings in the Church grounds which probably means that there is no permission making the signage illegal and therefore there can be no contract with you as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting on Council comeback on planning.

 

I will look into the church query too.

 

There are a good few signs - and I'm not talking 1 or 2 more than half a dozen not listed on their plan.

 

There is one sign located to the entrance on a pole at a hight of over 6 feet in the air.

 

This isn't on their plan either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is there also not this 10min rule?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus at 11 they trot out the non applicable criminal case (this is civil) Elliott v Loake.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That caught my eye and is in my statement as I type

 

is there also not this 10min rule?

 

I mentioned earlier that I was using parking help 1 who posted on here and case was dismissed. A fair few points on that witness statement match mine so I'm working on using that as a base to work along side mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's start to pull that little lot apart then.

 

1. Are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated...

 

So, we can assume from this that Sophie Fenn has personal knowledge of the site in question and will be at court so that she is available to be questioned by you. Jolly good.

 

At 10. The defendant failed to nominate who was driving prior to these proceedings being issued (which is required under the paragraph 5(2) of the act).

 

Presuming Ms Fenn means The POFA 2014 Schedule 4. Paragraph 5(2) says no such thing! Take 3 copies of it to court with you.

 

At 11. Elliot v Loake. YAWN! Take a look at the Parking Pranksters Blog and get a list of case numbers where judges have ruled that E v L is completely irrelevant and why. Just in case your judge on the day hasn't heard of it.

 

At 13. If the keeper was not the driver (and the contrary cannot be proved), then how on earth would the keeper know of the supposed contractual obligations of a contract that they had not seen or read?

 

At 15. Whilst this is accepted, the contract would be between UKCPM and the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

At 16. Licence is spelt with a bloody C ( Sorry, pet hate ) :evil:

 

Also at 16. The "Defendant" did not decide to park as the defendant was not the driver unless the claimant has proof to the contrary?

 

At 19. If the supposedly 'prominent' signage has been "audited and approved by the International Parking Community", why does the claimants own evidence bundle show photographs of signage that does not bear the "IPC Approved Operator" logo? But bears instead the "BPA Approved Operator" logo, a completely separate and indeed rival organisation.

 

As well as this, the signage, as evidenced by the claimants evidence, shows two different amounts for a Parking Charge Notice. Something that is highly unlikely to have not been picked up by "The IPC" or "The BPA" for that matter had the signs actually been "audited and approved".

 

At 25. As above regarding the amount for a PCN as evidenced in their own evidence.

 

At 26. The IPC or any other trade body can say pretty much whatever they like. However, there is no provision within the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 to recover any additional charges over and above what is stated on the signage in the car park.

 

At 27. See above.

 

At 28. See above.

 

At 29. Tough! See above.

 

 

As lookingforinfo has already pointed out, you are allowed to park there for 5 minutes, again according to their own evidence. And the IPC codes of practice for AOS members state...

 

Page 12. Paragraph 15.2. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired

 

That's MUST not, should be or might be, if you're in a good mood.

 

5 Minutes authorised, plus 10 minutes grace period is 15 minutes. Not 7. That last point alone will quite possibly be enough to destroy their whole case :lol:

 

Take a copy of the IPC COP with you https://theipc.info/uploads/-imXk-gEBVk2UV_c_WWpjuthUeH2hwEwihq7Np6Q030/Code%20of%20Practice%20v6%20Amended%2014th%20June%202017.pdf

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou very much dragonfly. you've pretty much nailed that for me, takes a while to digest their bundle and I was just begging to see the flaws in it slowly.

 

I will add all those to my statement.

 

Just out of interest when I spoke to the council about planning they said any sign that faces the highway would most likely be a different story! now one sign thats not listed on the plan is the one sign that faces the public highway! hmm!

Link to post
Share on other sites

then the first thing you ask the judge to do is consider striking the claim out under CPR 3 and 16.4 as per your letter he will have in front of him.

Also besides gladstones bundle I've received a letter from the court as follows;

 

"with reference to the above case and following your letter dated 4th jan please note your letter will be placed on the court file pending the forthcoming hearing on the 2nd March 2018.

 

With regards to your request for the matter to be summarily struck out,

a request of this nature will require a formal application on form n244 with a few 225.00, unless you are eligble with help with fees.

 

If you choose not to file an application then you will be at liberty to raise these issues with the district judge at the small claims hearing on 2nd of March.

 

Have I missed a point here? The 8th of Feb.. is that not the court case? I'm lost here

 

the council doent have to enforce the law but that doesnt make the law disappear. They dont have planning and that is needed to make a legal contract.

Just out of interest when I spoke to the council about planning they said any sign that faces the highway would most likely be a different story! now one sign thats not listed on the plan is the one sign that faces the public highway! hmm!
Link to post
Share on other sites

with regard to point 26 the POFA forbids the adding of additioanl charges when the companty is relying on keeper liliability so the IPC/Gladstones are talking out of thier bottoms with this.

 

I also note that the Rev Stoker has signed as the freeholder when she isnt.

 

The Church Commissioners are the freeholder so UKPCM now have a problem with "performance of contract" and also proving a chain of authority exists.

 

now a vicar of a parish has a lot of freedom but I doubt the Commissioners would allow them to flof the church plate so letting the rev sign away the land isnt likely either

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...