PPS/Gladstones/BW Windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform, - Not Parked In Allocated Bay - Premier Inn, Southernhay Exeter

[keljon]

thankyou for your comments, amended sections below

10.    The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 which makes no reference to the claimant having rights to sue under their own name.

 

11.    The defendant has the reasonable belief that no planning application for signage or ANPR cameras in operation has been made to Exeter City Council. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and thus no contract can have been formed.

 

 15.    The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines had been present on the day I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

[FTMDave]

Hang on, I made a mistake re (10).  Under "Terms & Conditions" in the fleecers' contract in (2) there is written "the Client authorises the Company to take legal action to recover these excess charges if needed", so you can't argue they aren't authorised.

 

Instead point out it's an old contract from 2015 with no proof of renewal.

 

Plus, did you find out who the landowner is?  Is it this Hobstone Limited?

[keljon]

amended

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 with no proof of renewal.

 

i have also amended this because it was June i went back

 

I later returned to the site as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)

 

how do i check the landowner because hobstone ltd was dissolved in 2015

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07961378

but there is a hobstone homes ltd maybe a type on their part

 

i read the clients VAT number on that contract as 003946881 which does not return any results on the HMRC site here https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-vat-number/enter-vat-details

 

[FTMDave]

Superb news - your detective skills are second to none!

 

So it's impossible for the fleecers to have a valid contract with a company that doesn't exist.

 

So, after "no proof of renewal" in post 157 add "Indeed, the contract is with Hobstone Limited, a company which was dissolved in 2015, so the contract cannot possibly be currently valid".

[brassnecked]

That should kill it they would nee d to counter that with a signed & dated contract current and valid

[dx100uk]

so all speculative invoices since that date should be refunded....ruddy fleecers!

 

dx

 

[keljon]

unfortunately I lost, am ordered to pay

 

100 parking charge

100 fixed legal costs 50 solicitor + 50 court costs

3.94 interest

 

The judge didn't seem to care they had provided a contract from 2015 with a company that had been dissolved that year.

I'm surprised at the outcome but i haven't really ended up paying anymore than the £160 they been chasing me for and i know its cost them a lot more to put this through the courts.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

judge lottery then.

 

whilst its fresh in your mind

expand to a text file and you can post it later.

 

then it might help others avoid falling for this golf partner outcome...

[FTMDave]

Sorry to hear things went badly.

 

As dx says, judge lottery unfortunately.

 

So you have to pay £200.  I imagine they were too stupid to deal with the case themselves and got a solicitor to do it for them.  Paying the solicitor plus the involvement of BW Legal will easily have cost £150, then they had £50 court costs to shelve out, meaning they didn't make a penny out of you.  As you say, ending up paying £200 is not much worse than £160, and I bet you have learnt a lot about the legal process which will set you in good stead for the future.

 

One small victory, they claimed £160 + costs, seems the judge allowed £100 + costs and at least disallowed the Unicorn Food Tax.

[brassnecked]

at least you know what stunts they pull and how to deal with them, its just sad that some judges haven't caught on to the wholesale abuse of process by these parking sharks.