Jump to content

parkinghelp1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About parkinghelp1

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. the judge asked me about travel and parking costs and loss of earnings which we sorted.. i didnt know i was able to claim for unreasonable conduct of the claimant, am i still able to, and is it worth still claiming and how much would i be able to claim.. BIG THANK YOU to everyone that has helped on here, i wouldnt of known what to write or do... you lot are good people and what you do is appreciated!
  2. "one thing you need to do is ask for the other side's representative what their SRA roll number is because if they are not a solicitor or dont work for PPM they are not allowed to speak." you also said this, how ill i confirm this by there SRA roll number that they work for ppm or are a solicitor?
  3. ok so just some answers im revising if they get asked and im assuming these qs will most likely get asked please feel free to add any other qs and responses that could be possinble. Q) were you the driver at the time of the vehicle? A) the parking company have not created a keeper liability therefore i am not going to name the driver at the time. Q) your vehicle was parked on the premises where the signage applied and conditions were not met which is why this PCN was given A) no contract was taken out or agreed too, the defendants vehicles was present for less than 5 minutes,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. anything else they can ask and anything i need to add if asked to those questions... i suppose ill have the witness statement i wrote infront of me so i can easily just read over that and refer to that.. will it in be in like a small room or a proper court where the judge is up at the top on his stand
  4. so what if the judge turns around and says did you park there and why did you park there knowing the terms that were on the signage..do i just say " there was no contract taken out, 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. what if the judge just asks straight outright if it was me.. do i admit it it was me who parked there or say, "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. 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.
  5. @shamrocker oh really! how is the layout of this case in court. . judge at the front me then their solicitor on the right or left side? so when the judge asks me, all i have to do is refer to the points i have in my written statement just read that out. . will they ask questinos like, were you the driver of the vehicle? did you park there? in which i guess i would just have to say, i did not enter into any contractual agreement to pay any charge? will it be a full on conversation or just relaying points to the judge. i will post up the skeleton version also. i really dont feel like going now :l
  6. 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​
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
×
×
  • Create New...