Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by shamrocker

  1. Just posting this for the benefit of others - and a bit of a success story that we all love to hear from these cases. I'd been helping someone who was ticketed on a poorly signed private parking "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" area at the rear of the Cross Keys Pub in Swansea (a well known local venue) by my favourite parking [mis]management company. All correspondence was ignored, including the Letter of Claim - but a claim form duly arrived and the defendant was slightly panicked (as many are). They eventually won the case a few weeks back. I helped with the initial defence and CPR request. Gladstones responded to the CPR request, along with a F&F settlement offer, which was ignored. The documentation received was useful, as it gave me some insight into the cards MPS were holding. The NOK was not POFA compliant and the agreement with the land owner/occupier wasn't watertight (was dated a couple of years prior to the event, and had a term that said it would be reviewed annually - possible angle to attack). This was on top of the forbidding signage and likely lack of planning permission. I drafted up a witness statement for the defendant, along the usual lines. Surprisingly, Gladstones served their witness statement early. They included a different agreement with the landowner to the one provided earlier ... but this one was dated AFTER the date they issued the ticket! I thought it was best not to draw attention to it, so simply laid out the case for the claimant being required to have authority etc - I quoted POFA and the IPC CoP. The plan was to pin them on this at the hearing - in addition to the usual other arguments. On the day of the hearing, the nervous defendant goes to the wrong court (went to the crown court), so ends up arriving late at the correct court, but had phoned in advance to let them know. The hearing went ahead without any further drama. The lady judge didn't hang about with stating that the claim would have to be dismissed due to the lack of authority. The claimant's representative got a bit flustered and offered to call the claimant to clarify. This was refused and the judge mentioned something about "you're not qualified to give evidence" - I'm not sure what this was about...perhaps alluding to the fact they weren't a qualified solicitor? All told, it lasted no more than five minutes and the defendant didn't have to say a word. Sadly, they hadn't prepared anything to ask for costs, although the judge did comment "you don't appear to be requesting costs" - the defendant was just happy to have the ordeal over with and get out the door.
  2. It's time to get reading up on the court process. Lots of threads here cover this - but come back and check that your understanding is correct. The Claimant will be willing to put a bit of effort into this considering there's £700 at stake, but they've got a number of weakness that they'll do well to contend with if you expose them correctly. It's all been mentioned on your original thread.
  3. Incontro - if you look at it from a different angle, what critical argument(s) would the defence suggested by DX prevent you from putting forward later? I would echo DX's suggestion about reading other advice forums. The advice given here is as good as it gets - you just can't see it...yet.
  4. A judge may well take the view that it looks like an agreement, and you're not denying ever entering into one, so it can be considered enforceable in the absence of reasons to the contrary. Therefore, you will need to make 'positive assertions' later in the process as to why the agreement supplied is unenforceable (assuming they disclose the same one in their WS), and rely on CCA s.127(3) due to the pre-April 2007 agreement. Which prescribed terms are not present, or cannot be seen to be present due to the illegibility of the agreement document? This would be worth spending some time reading up on and gaining a sound understanding. Look up Carey v HSBC, which gives a good explanation of prescribed terms and s.127(3), particularly in the context of reconstituted agreements. s.127(3) can be read here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/127/1991-02-01
  5. Email the court pronto and ask if they've paid. If not, invite them to strike it out in accordance with the court order.
  6. The grace period won't and shouldn't be your one and only argument (not suggesting you're saying it is), but you'd need to build an argument around it and use their own COP terms against them. They can't just stroll along when they see a breach of parking terms and issue a ticket on the spot, as many seem to do. Yours is slightly different as there is an observation period being stated - but that doesn't mean they are in the clear. There are numerous reasons stated further back which are much stronger than the grace period - specifically stating that no grace period applies being one, as it likely makes the contract invalid. Just start compiling a list of the main points and you can then expand upon them when you come to writing the WS. They'll most likely not rely on POFA either, so that can be your insurance policy.
  7. It's good that they have given you a firm date to work from (not that it's necessarily correct - so do your own homework too), but if you can also confirm the default date, you then will know that six years after that date, the matter will be completely dead and buried - as they may argue that the default date is when the SB clock started ticking. As things stand, by the time they get around to issuing a PAP letter, and the time it will take for you to reply and them to respond etc., it'll likely kill another couple of months. Just strengthens your position every month that passes.
  8. The 10 minutes grace period to leave the site after the period of parking had ended was definitely on there last October, but they'll probably say it wasn't. How do you prove otherwise? This issue involves a grace period to accept the terms though, rather than leave the site after completing the period of parking. One thing of note, is that signage states "no grace period applies", which is a breach of their COP. Probably worth arguing that this makes any contract with the driver invalid - or at least that they cannot even follow their own rules.
  9. The IPC seem to have removed the actual time element for the grace period - albeit, the 10 minutes has only applied to leaving the site for a fair while now (not for accepting terms upon arrival). It's generally been a case of "must allow sufficient/reasonable time for the driver to read and accept terms" upon arrival - i.e. open to interpretation. https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf Have they actually stated an observation time on the ticket and/or NOK? Sorry, I've not read through all posts.
  10. There is nothing to lose by submitting the directions questionnaire. You might as well also go as far as the witness statement and show them that you are only too aware of their shortcomings. If your partner is still too afraid of seeing it through, make them an offer of settlement. Even if they don't accept, you can still concede before the hearing. There's a fair chance they'll not even go as far as the hearing anyway. I was up against this lot myself and they never paid the hearing fee, so the case got stuck out. Hang in there. It's too soon to throw in the towel and pay out money that isn't deserved.
  11. Certainly seems legit...but you've received it ultra-quick after submitting your defence. I've not seen it done that quick before - but I do tend to only duck in and out of the forum. Completing it is easy enough.
  12. So... "No parking or waiting on access road". That reads as if it should be positioned at the entrance onto the private land (i.e. "you are entering onto private land - only do so if you agree not to stop on any access roads or you must pay £100") - then there would be prominent signs on the site stating "Access road", on those roads which they determine to be as such. This would give you an opportunity to stop and read the sign before entering onto the private land and thereby accepting an implied offer to drive over the access roads on the site, based on the terms outlined. This isn't the case, however. You're already on the site by the time the terms are presented to you, so you would be entitled to stop your vehicle on any non-permitted area for a reasonable amount while you inspect the offer and terms being made. Would 43 seconds be seen as reasonable - I don't think so. It's all a bit of a shambles in my view - but there's nothing new there. I'm just pointing this out as a different angle to potentially use in addition to what the other guys have said above. You can also twist it the other way and use the prohibitive argument, so definitely use both to undermine their position that a contract was entered into by the time they issued the charge. It also has nowt to do with an offer of parking, which is the supposed remit of the parking management company? I think your WS could do with a bit of refining, but you can always bung everything in now and then start condensing it later.
  13. You refer to an entrance sign in your draft WS. Is there a copy of the sign on here anywhere - or can you post a copy up for us to see? Is that where the car was parked? It doesn't look like the actual entrance to the site. Is there another sign above that last one you posted? It looks like the bottom of a sign directly above it.
  14. You do need to approach it on the expectation that it will end up in front of a judge. I'd much rather be in your position than theirs, that's for sure. It's all very predictable what they'll bring in support of their case anyway.
  15. Dodgy judges and dodgy defences often come hand in hand. Just make sure you understand the relevant arguments in defence and present them properly in your witness statement later. If you don't, you will very likely get one of those dodgy judges! You're only at the defence stage, so you'll have plenty of time to keep reading up and getting the key points clearer in your mind. It's really very straight forward, and you'll hopefully end up enjoying the thought of a potential visit to the court. They'll likely give up the ghost if you put a strong WS together anyway.
  16. You can't polish a turd! The best barrister in the land would struggle to win this claim ... if the correct arguments are used in defence. Don't over think it.
  17. EB - the OP is only doing their defence at this stage, not witness statement. Is your advice aimed at doing the WS?
  18. Have they stated the time that your period of parking commenced? They issued the ticket at 11:28, but what other times have they stated in support of the charge?
  19. the above doesn't really turn the screw on them and probably reflects a lack of your own understanding of this subject - sorry! Challenge: - The contract (i.e. the offer made, and associated terms) - prohibitive? Doesn't create a contract. - Could a contract have been entered into by the driver, according to both the terms on the signage and their own code of practice (i.e. was the driver given adequate time to consider the terms on the signage, and then accept them or decide to leave?) Not according to their NOK - do you have the original ticket? - The capacity in which they are pursuing you - i.e. driver or keeper. - To pursue driver, put them to strict proof to disclose evidence of their identity. - To pursue keeper, are they POFA compliant - the answer is 'no', due to non-compliant NOK. - Do they have locus standi? Refer to your CPR request and state that their lack of response gives you grounds to believe that they have no authority to enter into contracts for the land in question, and to issue claims related to the aforementioned contracts. - Lack of planning permission for signage - refer to CPR request again. That's the sort of angle I would take on it, but you'll need to work on the wording and post it up. It creates a few different hoops for them to jump through and covers a number of different bases. Basically throws their total lack of focus on a proper cause for action back at them and forces them to explain their position properly.
  20. I only asked the question because I'm assisting someone "off-site" with defending a claim by them. Lo and behold, Gladstones have complied (albeit "Without Prejudice save as to costs") and given until a certain date to pay a F&F reduced settlement. By that date, the claim should be stayed. I'm assuming it's a final throw of the dice. I did note on someone else's thread just a while ago that they've also complied with a CPR request - in part, at least. Anyway, sorry to digress from the OP's thread.
  21. Hang fire and wait for ericsbrother and co to offer advice. You need to expand a little on that, and also don't use "you" - use "the claimant" or "they". Also, what about the capacity in which they're pursuing you - driver or keeper? Has the driver actually entered into a contract with them....i.e. no period of parking? Have they created keeper liability by complying with POFA? These are possible lines of defence that you need to ensure are available to you further into the process.
  22. Send the CPR request by post - get free proof of posting from the post office. Don't give them your email address needlessly. Question for all - have Gladstones ever complied with any CPR requests that you know of?
  • Create New...