Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Email and call your local councillor, their details should be on Google.  Just explain everything to them and they will have the bailiffs off your back in short order.   Do it now, and this could be resolved by tomorrow.  
    • Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such).     It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves.   I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider.     The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time.         So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver.         What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned?     Then from the OP:       Your response:       The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was.     No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to.   Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above.   I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary: She moved; She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t; Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding; She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details; She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge.   Happens every day and simple to deal with.   Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant).   I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures.  It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.
    • Just ignore unless you receive a PAP letter.    Chances are you will run out the clock and it will become SB'd.    
    • Sure I read somewhere that PayPal MADE 2.2 billion dollars in 2018, so I guess losing out on say 10 million a year in negative balance is more cost effective than paying tax in the UK?  Dont get me wrong I’m by no means saying “sod it” they can afford it, I’m just hoping they don’t take me to the cleaners and at least give me time. 
    • I apologise profusely for my actions in this case. I pride myself on my integrity and honesty and I feel shameful for my moment of very poor judgement. As the sole income earner for the family (my wife is on maternity leave), a criminal record would be devastating for us as my employment relies upon a clean criminal record.   On the 22nd I was travelling to London Bridge and needed to connect at Three Bridges. When purchasing my ticket in the morning I only bought a ticket to Three Bridges by mistake.   I made a bad error and I am just so sorry for my actions and the inconvenience caused to all involved.   I am happy to make immediate payment of the unpaid fare and any incurred costs that my mistake have caused.   I would appreciate your consideration and I sincerely hope that you can show some leniency as an criminal conviction would impact my employment and ultimately being able to provide for my family.   Regards   I cant offer to get a monthly ir annual as I only travel a handful of times per year.
  • Our picks

ginger1981

ES Parking/Gladstone claimforn - PCN Spinningfields Manchester

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1020 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Well done for winning!

 

I will amend the witness statement accordingly, let me know what to add/remove.

 

I'm still taking them to court for breach of the DPA regardless of whether I win or not.

 

 

The funny thing is the cost of taking them to court is the same as the initial charge they invoiced me for:rofl:

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done for your success.

 

 

Costs are funny things,

if you list them beforehand you are more likely to get awarded them as then it gives the plaintiff the opportunity to consider the costs and whether they want to continue.

 

 

You could have asked for an award under CPR 27 as the claim was doomed to fail and the plaintiff knew it.

 

Let everyone know what was considered good and also what was considered unhelful/ irrelevant.

 

 

I know that planning is always a touchy one as some judges hate "people getting off things on a technicality" when it is actualy the letter of the law that determines the rights and wrongs.

 

you should both invite Mr Hargreaves to pay you the £250 up front to avoid another day out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did put costs in the witness statement Ericsbrother, but the judge was only willing to give travel expenses for today and we only live 3 miles from court, he wouldn't award for any previous research, petrol or postage etc. and he offered us 45p a mile petrol and then added "do you want to claim these or shall we not rock the boat?"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

costs lottery. Personally I would have asked for the £1.35 to be paid within 7 days just to get the opportunity to get the bailiffs in after ES if they didnt pay. Another £60 fee but you get that back as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news - well done Ginger !!!

 

Let us know the details when you get chance

 

Congratulations !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll briefly run through the key points and then talk through the defence and what the Judge said.

 

 

Another case was on the wall against ES parking this morning in Wigan,

but I didn't see anyone else arrive and so maybe they failed to appear.

Its unclear as to whether it was a spinning fields case though or not.

 

 

Mr Hargreaves was already at the court when we arrived and I'd prepared myself for him to offer to settle out of court, but he didn't

 

 

. We briefly spoke when he asked if myself or my husband would be staying outside with our baby, and

I said we both intended to go in with the baby.

He said it would be upto the judge if that would be allowed.

 

Once inside the court Mr Hargreaves explained his side of the case,

showed pictures of the car ,

pointed out the location the car was stopped on his map of white and yellow dots

(these are where signs are located, white and yellow together indicate a back to back sign).

He'd even brought a life size copy of the sign.

 

 

The judge criticised their witness statement for not having figure numbers or any way of identifying documents being referred to.

 

Then it came to our defence.

He initially read through the bullet point defence that we sent it before allocation,

then went onto the main witness statement.

Judges comments in red

 

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 judge said that the PCN stated that we had stopped/parked, and Mr Hargreaves had asked us to clarify the location of the car on his map, so it wasn't alleged

 

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. This was the main point, and what won it for us, the judge said that even at the 6-8ft away that he was from the sign there is no way he could read the terms and conditions and agreed you would have to stop to look at the sign, therefore breaching the 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. He dismissed this as they had provided a contract for their employment in their witness statement. I did say that we'd sought this since the very first contact, and only received a copy after our own witness statement was submitted.

 

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.

Apparently the end section of the road is not covered by their contract and the judge felt the signs should be sufficient notice. We didn't push the public/private highway point as we were pretty sure we'd won at this point based on things the judge had said, and I never had opportunity to go over to Manchester to view the plans, and Manchester council never replied.

 

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) He agreed with the point about not being able to read the sign from the car. He said he couldn't comment on the consumer contracts regulations bit as I hadn't copied in the specific point I wanted to make, so it was void. He was very interested in the change of signage, and felt that the new signs were a fairer way of explaining the T&Cs from a vehicle

 

6. Setting down does not constitute parking. He said as the initial PCN said stopping/parking that it wasn't relevant

 

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 he said no expenses would be awarded apart from travel expenses. He did check if there were loss of earnings, but in our situation work days were just juggled around the hearing, so no loss of earnings. It bugs me that we've actually spent around £30 on going to and from Manchester to take pictures, postage to and from solicitors and court, phone calls etc, and I can't even begin to tell you how many hours of research time, and we walked away with nothing but the moral high ground. I'd do it again though (but my husband said we should have just paid it and saved ourselves 9 months of hassle!)

 

So for anyone fighting an ES Parking at Spinningfields up to at least June 27th 2016 (the last date at which I saw the old signs)

you should be home and dry as it seems most judges agree they are prohibitive and don't form a contract.

 

 

The judge took great exception to the fact that Mr Hargreaves said we were stopped for 3/4 minutes and they'd still taken us to court,

 

 

he actually pointed at him and said "rip off" and called into question the amounts of money that ES Parking are charging, saying most people in this area don't earn that much per day.

 

Hopefully this information will help someone else, and certainly I feel ES Parking should be forced to repay all people they've issued PCNs to from this site, not sure how you'd go about that though?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

points for others to learn,

 

 

if you are going to make reference to the POFA,

consumer contracts reg,

planning act 2007 etc

you take copies of the legislation with you as part of your evidence bundle and can then go through it with the judge.

 

Also,

I'm not sure if it is you or the judge that has misunderstood the requirements for the assignment of all rights from the landowner to the parking co as you talk about employment contract.

Again, the exact limits of ES area of interest should have been precisely determined.

 

Lastly

the judge saying that setting down and parking being the same is a worrying aspect of his thinking process,

this is about a breach of contract and if that contract covers parking

then there is either an obligation or breach to consider and stopping is a different consideration.

 

 

The use of the wording on their claim should have been enough to get it dismissed as that isnt a breach and so no cause for action.

 

 

Again, people will have to pick through the POC word by word and go after every little discrepancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...