ES Parking/Gladstone claimforn - PCN Spinningfields Manchester

[ericsbrother]

good, make sure you have them to hand and also present the new ones as well so the difference can be seen. make the point about the new ones being rubbish verbally rather than in your statements just to stick it in.

[Oddfellow]

Who on earth is advising these people? It is staggering! It's time some judge or other issued an order for them to take such signs down and to stop trying to obtain money by deception, which is what it is!

[ericsbrother]

each summons is issued to different people so unless you can get 200 of them together for a class action it is all a matter of percentages.

 

75% of the tickets issued get paid,

of the other 25% assumng they all go as far as a court will result in 85% of those claims going through by default.

 

That means for 100 tickets issued only 5% actually get as far as a court hearing.

If they make £100 a time on the tickets the parking co earn £9500 from the ones that arent challenged and only lose their costs on the ones that are so say £50 for each of them= £250. That means they make £9250 profit overall.

 

If the 100 poeple who got a ticket were better informed then the parking co would lose every claim

 

Assuming they didint take any to court but the motorist then sued them for breaches of the DPA the loss to the parking co would be £30000 and they would soon be out of business because of their greed and dishonesty.

 

A judge can only look at what is in front of them so they will deal with one case at a time.

 

The parking co may well be breaking the law

but it is notoriuously difficult to get anyone with the powers of prosecution interested in minor corporate fraud.

[ginger1981]

Just a Question. When I initially filed our defence it was outline bullet points. Do I have to submit more detailed version before our court date or just take it on the day?

[ericsbrother]

When you are given a hearing date you will also be told when to exchange papers by.

It is normally 14 days before the hearing.

You also send a copy to the court

 

. you will need to write a witness statement and also have copies of all the other things you intend to rely on like

images of the signage,

the other cases where ES have been stuffed for this place and it has been decided that they have no claim etc.

 

You must read all of the other threads that are ongoing even if you dont think they relate to yours,

they all do and you would have then learnt what you need to do and when.

 

4 people have returned to their threads this new year after 4 months of silence and then wonder why all of a sudden they have big problems and no time

 

Post up your witness statement here before you submit it,

it doesnt need to be full of legalese and dont use the 5 paragraph tmeplate that you will find on another web site, it is irrelevant and will screw you.

 

you need to say things like

claimant has failed to show cause for action against the defendant as keeper of the vehicle xx00yyy as no liability created by POFA as protocols not adhered to.

 

In any case the signage is prohibitive so no contract can be formed.

 

Same goes for PP- no pp

then a criminal act to have signs there and you cant enter into a criminal compact even if you wanted to. etc

 

mention the other cases by saying that in ES v Mr X at whatever court on such a date case ref 10se34xxx judge bbb determined that no stopping was not an offer of a contract or whetever the words were

 

and then with your other papers include all of the case refernces you can find

(there are plenty on parking prankster for starters)

and add a screenshot or transcript or whatever as part of your bundle

to show that this was not an isolated decision

and therefore compelling evidence that you are right.

[ginger1981]

You're right Ericsbrother,

 

 

when I got the court date of February I took my foot off the gas and thought

"oh, I'll get sorted after Christmas!".

 

 

Good job I checked, the documents need to be back 21 days before the court date,

 

 

so I have just under a week.

I have got most stuff typed up already, but need to do the witness statements.

Do you think its sufficient to just print out onto A4 paper the images of the signs?

 

Also, do you think we should explain in the witness statement why we stopped (with hazards on), or is it irrelevant?

[dx100uk]

why do you think hazard lights are relevant?

[ginger1981]

I'm just trying to understand if the witness statement is meant to be a retelling of what happened, or just a more detailed defence of why they can't claim the PCN?

[dx100uk]

both in a way.

[ericsbrother]

This is about a contract so why do you think that having your hazards on changes the legitimacy of a contract?

 

You also have failed to take any notice of just about every thread on the private parking forum, including advice on your own thread when you make this comment.

 

YOU DO NOT NAME THE DRIVER OR INDICATE IN ANY WAY WHO IT MAY BE.

 

ES cannot rely on the POFA to create a keeper liability so at this point they are suing the wrong person yet you want to change that just so you can say that you have some flashing lights you wish to show off.

 

I apologise to anyone who feels that this is being flippant but it gets very tiring when you reperat the same things to different people and they cant be bothered to put in a bit of effort for themselves and read other threads,

 

some of which are on exactly the same place as theirs and fail to read the paperwork they are sent by the court properly it leaves one with a feeling that one is pushing against an immovable object.

 

So, you start by saying something like

 

this is the witness statement of Mr x,

the defendant in the case of ES parking v Mr x,

court ref a123b456

 

 

1.I am the keeper of the vehicle reg aa00bbb which the claimants allege was parked at (exact location) spinningfields, Manchester on whatever date and time that was supposedly a breach of a contract between the Driver and ES parking, the claimant.

 

2.As ES parking do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create a keeper liability the defendant puts it to strict proof as to who was the driver at the time as there is no contractual liability created between the plaintiff and the defendant as keeper of the vehicle. (if you wrote to them previously as the driver then all of this is irrelevant and can be left out)

 

3. Es parking does not have the necessary planning consent for their signage, contrary to the advertising hoardings display regs of the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, which is itself a criminal act and thus no contract can ever be entered into by way of that sigange even if the defendant wished to.

 

4. the signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so. This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regs of 2014. the singage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the plaintiff can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract.

 

5. In any case, the signage says "no Stopping at all" and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12. therfore there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract.

 

6. As Es parking know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

 

This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief, (check for stock wording)

dated

signed

 

Add your pictures and the case summary referred to plus a list of others that are abioout prohibitive signage (there are a dozen or so on the prankster's blog for starters)

 

copies to the court and to Gladdys per pro ES.

[ginger1981]

Thank you ericsbrother I appreciate you taking the time to reply and understand it must be extremely frustrating to keep saying the same thing over and over again.

 

I have never mentioned the name of the driver, but assumed that this would be asked directly by the judge, so thought that would need to be in the witness statement.

 

I have read many threads, but they all start to be the same after a while, so apologies if I've frustrated you.

[ericsbrother]

no named driver?

good, then they cant sue you as keeper becuase their NTK isnt compliant and that alone should lose them their claim as they arent suing the right person UNLESS they canm prove it is you.

 

However, some judges may use a balance of probablilities to decide if you were or werent driving at the time so you need other argumants, which you have. you can also state that you weret driving if that was the case.

 

Also, if you sent them a CPR 31.14 discovery request and they diodnt respond then you can add thsi at point 6 and say that they have failed to show locus standi and cause for action under a CPR31.14 request so you invite the calim to be struck out and then go on to ask for CPR 27 full costs recovery.

 

You will need to show what your costs are so £95 for 5 hours LiP research, whatever postage and photocopying costs you have incurred, loss of earnings for attending court, travel and subsistence.

 

You may not get all of this but you will get nothing if you dont ask. If you do get your costs then it will make ES think that they have been poorly served by the IAS/IPC/Gladstones and may very well ditch them.

 

Gladstones are sailing close to the wind regarding their behaviour so you may well get ES to do you the courtesy of dropping the matter when they get your evidence bundle and it mentions other cases they have lost at this site.

[ginger1981]

I've just contacted the County court, as yesterday was the cut off for the hearing fees to be paid. As yet they have not processed any fees, but said to ring back tomorrow to check incase they just haven't made it through the system but have been received. I'm not convinced they'll even turn up at the hearing

 

this is the witness statement

 

ES Parking Enforcement Ltd v Mr X court ref XXXXXXXX

 

This is the witness statement of Mr XXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in the case.

 

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on 04/04/16 at 10:51.

 

2. Any purported contract for parking would be with the landowner, not ES Parking Enforcement Limited (ESPEL). When the initial Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was received the defendant immediately replied and sought clarification of key points pertaining to the charge, including clarifying their contract with the landholder that demonstrated that they had authority to both issue parking charges and litigate.

 

The Claimant ignored this letter, and instead said it had rejected an appeal which had not been started (See Attachments 1 & 2). A CPR 18 request was made (Attachment 3) requesting further information in this regard. Gladstones Solicitors, acting on behalf of ESPEL, refused to send these documents, claiming they will send them with their clients witness statement (yet to be received).

 

3. The charge issued was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

4. Setting down does not constitute parking.

 

5. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 1 &2 )

.

6. The signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 3 and 4). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014.

 

The largest font on the sign being for the payment number.

The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract.

 

Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received, proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 5)

 

7. The signage says "No Stopping at all" and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract.

 

8. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

£95 for research,£10.44 postage costs, £13.12 petrol costs, £3 Parking

Total= £121.56

 

This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed xxxxxxx

Dated 5/1/17

 

what does LiP mean Ericsbrother?I've included it anyway!

[Oddfellow]

I would elevate your point 7 (the strongest element of your defence) to Point 2, including reference to attachments showing signage.

 

I would also state explicitly that case C8GF4C12 relates to the very same site as your case (this may carry more weight than any old similar signage elsewhere).

 

Since Beavis, am I not right in saying that the charge does not have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, provided that it is not unconscionable?

 

Finally, was your request for more contract info made under CPR 18, or 31.14?

[ginger1981]

CPR 18 because I thought it would be allocated small claims (I know that prior to it being allocated you can still use CPR 31.14)

 

I 'think' I've just had confirmation from Manchester Highways that this street is an adopted highway maintained by public expenses, so that will also be going in there too. Would that mean ES are fraudulently claiming money in that case?

[Oddfellow]

I'm no expert, but I would imagine so ... it's not "relevant land" if it's a public highway, but I don't know if that only applies to PoFA, which I note you aren't using in your defence. Others will advise.

[ericsbrother]

it would mean they have no right to claim anything from anyone as the road would be covered by the RTA and nowt to do with them. so no contract.

 

It wouldnt be fraud if they held an honest belief they had formed a contract with someone BUT as they have already lost at least one claim from here, their continuance is not proper so they can get clobbered for costs etc if the judge is minded that way.

 

If it is the same court i would make sure they damned well know about all of this well before the day of the hearing and hope that the case is dismissed with costs on the papers alone.

 

as for your defence point 2 is cobblers,

point 3 is cobblers,

 

you can amend point 2 to read that a CPR 18 request was sent but no response received so it is my belief that ES have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter.

LiP is Litigant in Person (you)

[ginger1981]

Okay have made said adjustments

 

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, which the claimants allege was parked at Spinningfields Estate, Manchester on 04/04/16 at 10:51.

The claim is disputed in its entirety for the following reasons:

 

2. The signage says "No Stopping at all" (Figure 1) and as such the signage is prohibitive in nature and not the offer of a contract. This interpretation has been confirmed by the decision of DJ Iyah at Manchester on the 29/11/16 in ES v Ms A case ref C8GF4C12 relating to the same location and signs. Therefore, there can never be a claim for monies arising from a breach of contract.

 

3. Any purported contract for parking would be with the landowner, not ES Parking Enforcement Limited (ESPEL). When the initial Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was received the defendant immediately replied and sought clarification of key points pertaining to the charge, including clarifying their contract with the landholder that demonstrated that they had authority to both issue parking charges and litigate (See Attachments 1 & 2). A CPR 18 request was made (Attachment 3) requesting further information in this regard, but no response received so it is my belief that ESPEL have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter.

 

4. There is no signage on the entrance to Gartside Road stating that it is a private road, and all the road markings and street furniture are consistent with a public highway (Figures 2 &3 ). According to Manchester City Councils Highways Service, Gartside street is an adopted highway, maintained at public expense (Attachment 4), meaning ESPEL have no authority to issue PCNs.

 

5. If, in fact, they did have authority, the signs are too small to be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle and their position makes them impossible to read and consider without stopping to do so (Figures 4 and 5). This makes then unenforceable and unfair, contrary to the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2014. The largest font on the sign being for the payment number

. The signage also fails to meet the standards set in the BPA code of practice and unless the Claimant can show how any method they use to determine the suitability of their signage matches or exceeds the minimum requirements of that CoP they cannot be said to be adequate notice of a contract. Some signage has been changed at this location following the initial PCN being received, proving ESPEL know the initial signage did not meet the required standard. (Figure 6)

 

6. Setting down does not constitute parking.

 

7. As ESPEL know that their claim has no merit and they have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g

£95 research costs

£10.44 postage costs

£13.12 petrol costs

£3 Parking

Total = £121.56

 

This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

dated

signed

[ericsbrother]

point 3 is still cobblers, ES can forma contract if they have the proper assignment to do so by the landowner. You have requested sight of this and can puit it to strict proof they do have such a contract but youi cant go round telling people this nonsense or you may well lose because the judge has got the hump and wont lsiten to anything else you ahve to say

[ginger1981]

Okay, could point 3 say

When initial pcn was received clarification of ESPELs contract with the landowner demonstrating they had authority to issue and litigate on their behalf was sought, and a ccpr 18 requested, but no response has been received. It is my belief that ESPEL have no locus standi and thus cause for action on this matter.

[ericsbrother]

yes.

Now have to get together with the other people posting here about claims from ES at this site to see when you are due at court?

 

If it is the same day then you should ask for all the hearings to be together and heard as one. that will save you all time and you can use the same defence arguments

 

. It will also make ES more likely to drop the matter before the first hearing as they know they will get hammered 3 times rather than hope someone may wobble and just pay up/not attend etc.

 

Their lawyer will still charge them 3 lots of attendance so they will be happy enough and they wont have to look stupid 3 times ina day either

 

By the way, you have completely omitted the fact that their NTK is not complaint with the POFA so no keeper liability has been created and you put it to strict proof as to who was driving at the time this should be point 2 and move everything else down 1

for point 5 do not say "if in fact they had authority" as it invites then to argue about that. It should just read " the signs cannot be read from the drivers seat of a vehicle etc

you are making a statement dont forget, not entering into a debate.

[NorthWestITConsultant]

My date is mid February.

 

Who does the witness statement have to be posted to and what is the cut off date?

 

I've just submitted an online Claim against them for Breach of the DPA. Will be taking them to court purely on the basis they obtained my details from the DPA without reasonable grounds.

[ericsbrother]

14 days before the court date. Send copies to court and claimant's solicitor.

[NorthWestITConsultant]

One thing I will be doing for sure is donating some of the proceedings to the CAG - definitely deserve it for helping us all through this.

[ginger1981]

Our date is 1st Feb at Wigan