Jump to content

porkloiner

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About porkloiner

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Claim dismissed! The Judge didn't agree with me that keeper liability hadn't been created - he didn't seem to have much of a grasp of POFA at all and was interpreting it differently to what I was I thought I was on to a loser, however, Gladdy's WS made reference to the signs in the car park and the site signage plan - the sign in their bundle wasn't the same as in the car park and they didn't even enclose a signage plan. Furthermore, they didn't include the windscreen ticket (relevant to my POFA argument) in their bundle and when I brought all this up, the Judge dismissed the claim. Thanks to those that have contributed on this thread and assisted me with defending the matter - it's much appreciated. Gladdy's rep was utterly useless and if he's an example of what they send to these hearings, I would encourage anyone to challenge the PPCs or as I prefer to call them, Parking Cowboys.
  2. Attached is the witness statement from GS. Looks to be a carbon copy from all other claims. Any thoughts/advice? SOCMFD01M17080718020.pdf
  3. Okay, will do. They probably never even read the letter anyway Just read the Wakefield judgment. Not sure how it applies to my case - unless you mean the POFA aspect?
  4. The only reason I offered it was to appear more reasonable and because that was the minimum that should have been offered on the NTK. Do you suggest I remove it from the WS either way? To be fair, the proposal was made whilst stating it was being made in my capacity as registered keeper only and was not an admission of liability and that they had still failed to create keeper liability
  5. Okay, I have made the suggested amendments and also added the following: --- A CPR 31.14 request was made to the Claimant’s solicitors for the following on 26th January 2017: the contract between SIP Parking Ltd and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name; proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007; copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from SIP Parking Ltd and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court No reply was ever received from the Claimant. --- and --- I have acted reasonably throughout the claim whereas the Claimant has not. I decided not to engage with the appeals process offered by the Claimant for the following reason: In Parking & Property Management Limited v C Limited C6GF02Z5 19/1/2017 Birmingham. DJ Musgrave, C Limited pointed out that there was a clear conflict of interest as the IAS (the appeals service provider) and Gladstones were run by the same body. A potential conflict of interest therefore exists between the Claimant’s Solicitors and their client. In effect the Claimant’s solicitors have the potential, to exert influence via their formulation of the appeals process and appointment of adjudicators (whose identities are deliberately withheld), over the extent to which appeals are allowed. This in turn is likely to have the consequence of generating more litigation for them to undertake on the IPC’s members (in my case, SIP Parking Ltd.) behalves. There is also the potential for the Claimant’s solicitors to compromise the supposed independence of the IAS to suit the broader interests of parking management companies who are both its clients and the members of the trade association it operates I have however, responded to all Correspondence from the claimant re court action. In a letter to the Claimant’s Solicitors on the 6th March 2017 in a letter requesting an oral hearing, I also made a genuine payment proposal of £40 to settle the matter in my capacity as registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX. I received no reply. The Claimant’s Solicitors have failed to reply to any correspondence and the the CPR 31.14 request. --- Reckon I'm good to go?
  6. Thanks for the reply. Haven't posted yet. When it comes to numbering exhibits, what's the best or preferred format? Is there any protocol in relation to this? Also - what is the date of service? The date I post it? I've done some research re this and I can't find a definitive answer. The hearing is 11th August
  7. Papers need submitting next week. How is this looking? ---- 1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXX XXX involved in the penalty charge notice XXXXXXX issued by SIP Parking Limited on XX/XX/XXXXX. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case. 2. The claimant has not identified the driver and there is no keeper liability created under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The claimant has not created said liability for the following reasons: i. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. The claimant has failed to: Correctly state how the parking rules were broken. Reason given was ‘No Ticket Displayed’. The car park operates a ‘Pay By Phone’ payment method thus a screen ticket is not necessarily required. On the numerous occasions the vehicle was parked there previously, payment was made via this method (receipts enclosed). What the parking charges are for, the infringement of the rules, and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and the date by which those parking charges should be paid. The Notice to Driver states that the charge will be £100 if paid within 28 days. There is no tariff mentioned for paying in excess of that time. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. The claimant has not created said liability for the following reasons: Failed to repeat the information in the Notice to Driver regarding paying the parking charge and the tariffs referring to when the charge is paid. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case: The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by SIP Parking Ltd’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner. The small print on the signage provided by the claimant demonstrates that SIP Parking Ltd will not be liable for any damage to or property stolen from vehicles. This means, therefore, they are acting on behalf of the landowner, but the signage does not state who the landowner is. The Claimant has not provided copies of the alleged contract between SIP Car Parks Limited “The Operator” and Gateway Plaza “The Landlord” in their particulars of claim. However, Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency. If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be sued If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if they fail to uphold their part of the bargain. This case is clearly (b)..’, and SIP Parking Ltd, therefore, have no standing to bring this case. Only the landowner has the right to do this. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal representative’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service, generating up to £50,000 of income. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s solicitor can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant, generating over £1.5 million a year in profit. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging. The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee. ---- It is all properly numbered on the actual document but for some reason, the formatting isn't working on the forum. Do I also need to serve copies of all supporting documentation?
  8. I'm getting ready to file my defence... Can someone please explain this point to me in more detail? "The amount claimed does not represent the original charge expressed to the driver, which was zero, so is purely made up of monies that are thus unenforceable penalty charges" which ericsbrother suggest I include
  9. Yeah, was thinking the same - just I won't have time to write anything new before then so I'll just submit what I've written above on or before that date. I owe you two a beer!
  10. Right, maybe not bother with the landowner then So - just to clarify, submit my defence as is at the moment? I may leave it until I return from hol to submit so as not to invite any further correspondence whilst I'm away
  11. Thanks for clarifying. Makes more sense now. No wonder people just pay up - this whole area is overwhelmingly confusing and needs the Govt to come in and tidy up Re my defence - submit what I've written above now, yes? Case law etc. comes in later on the witness statement, right? Sorry if I seem daft, I'm just trying to not slip up I'm also considering approaching the landowner - or is it too late?
  12. As ever, thank you for the continued support... Unfortunately, due to the timing of this claim landing and work commitments, I haven't been able to give it as much of my time as I would wish. Furthermore, I go on holiday in the next couple of days and ideally need to submit my defence beforehand ericsbrother, given your previous post, should I submit the following on the defence form? 1. No cause for action by claimant against defendant as no keeper liability created under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 2. The sum claimed is for a breach of contractual obligations. No such obligation exists 3. The signage displayed in the car park is not an offer of a contract but an invitation to treat 4. The terms offered are unfair under the consumer contracts regulations 5. The amount claimed does not represent the original charge expressed to the driver, which was zero, so is purely made up of monies that are thus unenforceable penalty charges 6. The sum claimed is not reflective of the damages suffered by the claimant My plan is to thoroughly research each point on my return and begin gathering evidence of previous decisions to strengthen my argument. I presume then that my next submission will need to be much more detailed? I'm wondering whether you could help me with one thing - you state that 'the sum claimed is supposedly for breach of a contractual obligation.' How have we come to that conclusion when the POC states 'parking charges for breaching the terms of parking...' Are we saying that due to the claimant alleging breaches that there is in fact, in their mind, a contract in place?
×
×
  • Create New...