Jump to content

parkinghelp1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by parkinghelp1

  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
  10. 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*
  11. 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?
  12. 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
  13. 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)
  14. 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..
  15. please note and advise all of the notices have a mispelling of the road on one letter, i dont know if this matters. gladstonesggggg.pdf
  16. thank you all for your replies it is much appreciated. i have attached everything, also i have not yet sumbitted anything to the court or other parties as i do not know what to send or write.. . in the letter from the court it says "each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including experts report) on which he intends to reply on at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing. which i have 2 days to do. thank you
  17. Hi, i have recieved an email from gladstones Dear xxxx We act for the claimant. Please find attached our client's Witness Statement. We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court Yours sincerely, I, David Blake, of Ocean House, 12th Floor, The Ring, Bracknell, RG12 1AX WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company wishes to rely upon; i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’) ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract) iii) The Site Plan iv) Notices v) Photographs of the incident 3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the Schedule below are details of the parking charge; ( then states the pcn number and reason "unauthorised parking) The Defence No contract 4. My Company relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein. 5. The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which they did, the charge was properly incurred. No authority to enforce charges 6. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the Landowner. 7. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186 1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning. 2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the land. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking CPR 31.14 Request 8. The Defendant refers to a CPR 31.14 request made. CPR 31.14 allows a party to request documents mentioned in its statement of case. The Defendant requested a copy of the contract between my Company and the Landowner, proof of planning permission and copies of all correspondence sent, i.e. the notice to keeper. None of these documents are mentioned in the statement of case and therefore CPR 31.14 does not apply. Further the Defendant would have already been sent the notices and therefore he should revert back to his own records accordingly. The Defendant avers that they were not the driver 9. The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. To date the Registered Keeper has been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver, yet has failed to do so. The Court is therefore invited to conclude it more likely than not that the Registered Keeper (i.e. the Defendant) was the driver. 10. In the alternative, if the Court is not able to infer that the Defendant was, in fact, the driver then the Defendant is pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) which states: “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.” 11. The relevant Notice was sent to the Defendant in accordance with the Act and the Registered Keeper (the Defendant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)). 12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The Current Debt 13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred. 14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract). they have then gone on to show a picture of the contract between them and PPM the company etc. a plan of the parking area they are in charge of that they said can be enforced, a picture of the signage and picture of the vehicle parked, and copies of the initial and remind notice. please note that one letter is misspelt of the road on everything they have sent and mentioned. example being ( lawdocks avenue > lawdacks avenue).. i dont know if this can be used... Please advice what i need to do, bit worried and a bit stuck on what to write :/
  18. what do i need to exactly include in this statement :/ and why do we hope they file theirs first? what does that mean what is the likely next step from this
×
×
  • Create New...