PCM Windscreen PCN claimform - Sailsbury village - REsidential Permit fallen on Floor **WON**

[lookinforinfo]

Apahtan it was meant to be aggressive. There is no point pussyfooting around with either of these companies. They are both equally disreputable and are quite happy yo rip you and every other motorist off as often as they can regardless of the legality of their claim.

The parking-Prankster has an article on his site

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/latest-gladstone-court-debacle.html

If you scroll down the page there is a piece which you should forward to the Court on why you do not want a paper hearing.

 

And if you go to this site you will read a wonderful litany of just how bad Gladstones is and how often they lose in Court.

 

Ericsbrother is right to suggest that you write to PCM though you will have to modify the letter a bit. I would still send that letter to Gladstones also.

 

I have done the changes for you below.

 

Dear PCM Parking,

Do you think I would agree to dealing with this case on the papers considering who I am dealing with? A company that has lost time and again in Court over permits and who lied to become a member of the IPC. Then are so stupid they cannot get the name of their AOS correct and compound their stupidity by employing a second rate solicitor to carry out their work. I am looking forward to my day in Court with you where I will show the Judge cases which you have already lost in Court where permits are involved. I will of course be going for exemplary damages.

 

If you send off the item to the Court re why you don't want a paper hearing that will surely help stop further Court proceedings as neither will want to explain to a Judge why they are even

contemplating to take you to Court. On the other hand you could make a fair amount from PCM if they do take you to Court.

 

Another thing you can do is to write to PCM forbidding them to enter your parking space as that will be considered trespass and should they fail to observe your demand you will have no hesitation in taking them to Court. There is history for this-

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

[lookinforinfo]

Should gladstones not back down have a read of this" parking prankster gladstone's" on CAGS Search the Web at the top of the page on the burgundy coloured line to find many instances of their losses. Therefore they know from previous cases that the haven't a hope in winning against you in Court but still they persist. Really nice company.

[apahtan]

so I've copied the example letter from the parking pranksters website, is this acceptable to send to the county court for the request for an oral hearing.

 

"To the court manager

(Copy to Gladstones)

 

As the facts of the case are in dispute, I believe it important to be able to orally challenge the claimant, and any witness statement they may file later.

 

It is also noted that Gladstones regular behaviour is to ambush defendants in court by failing to provide any information until the last minute. I therefore wish to be able to challenge whatever information is filed should I disagree. It is noted that the correct procedure is to file any challenges to my defence as a reply to defence. Gladstones solicitors regularly ignore the court process by attempting to file new legal arguments in their witness statement at the last minute. As they are regularly assist in parking cases they are well aware this is not correct procedure.

 

Should they do this, I would need to orally dispute this.

 

For all these reasons I request that an oral hearing is held.

 

Additionally, regarding their claim together with a lack of any reply to defence, I would content they have not established any prima facie case and therefore have no prospect of success. As this is a regular tactic of theirs, the court can use their discretionary case management abilities and strike the claim out. I enclose a copy of an order showing a similar claim by Gladstones which was struck out. It is worth noting that Gladstones do not respect court procedure and although the claim was struck out they then refiled the claim with new particulars. This was then of course duly struck out again

[ericsbrother]

no harm in sending it.

A simpler letter would say that you would wish to cross examine their witnesses and so an oral hearing is a necessity and thus you object to their request to ahve the matter decided on the papers.

[lookinforinfo]

Ericbrothers version is of course shorter. The only caveat I would add is that on the third last line of your message on post 62 it says "I enclose a copy of an order...." so you would have to include that copy. But it does point out the poor practices of Gladstones and should they use them in your case [assuming it gets that far and I suspect that

Gladdies will not want to appear] the the Judge may be more strict and not give them much leeway.

[apahtan]

So i have received another letter from the courts however it has been dated for the 23rd of November and i only received it yesterday.

 

The letter says the following

" take notice that

this is now a defended claim, the defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed (however "a copy of which is enclosed" has been crossed out with a pen and there is no copy in the letter recieved)

It appears this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track. If you believe this track is not the appropriate track for your claim, you must complete box C1 on the small claims directions questionnaire. You must by 10 December complete the small claims directions questionnaire (N180) and file to the court office."

 

the really weird thing is the letter came in an envelope with my name and address hand written and there was another letter with the letter above, stating:

 

" your court letter enclosed received by mistake. If you need any help for your case with PCM contact ...(there is an email address).

We are residents in a estate which PCM controlled the parking. We won a lot of court cases against PCM and got our costs from them as well £450, £1500, £1700. If you or know someone won court cases against PCM let us know. regards." (the english on the letter is exactly like it is on this post)

 

Im very confused as to what is going on and why this person would open my letter? Please help.

[ericsbrother]

well, who sent you the letter originally? the envelope will give you the best clue if you dont know.

as for the email address, is it a private addy or from the courts service? (.gov.uk)It may well be a neighbour opening your post so check the address of the communication from the court as they may ahve sent out this in error to another person who is having grief from PCM.

Once you have dealt with the court part you can then consider asking the anonymous person whether they can give you the claim numbers they refer to so you can quote them as being persuasive in your case. Dont give too much away at this juncture regarding what you intend to say in case you are being given a bum steer.

[dx100uk]

Pm me the email ad

[apahtan]

it seems the letter was sent to the wrong address so the letter i received was on a handwritten envelope, the email address looks like a private one. my only concern is as the letter was posted on the 23rd of november i have to reply by the 10th however im at university and my letters are sent to home, could i ring the courts and explain the situation so i have extra time to post the N180 form?

[ericsbrother]

FAX, email etc. have you been using MCOL? If so them use the steps in there to respond. Still plenty of time for smail mail anyways unless you intend to sit on this for ever. get your parents to scan it and send you a copy as an email attachment so you can fill it in if necessary

[dx100uk]

N180 is in our files section here

or downloadable directly from the .gov.uk site

[apahtan]

Hi all, 

So I now have a court date set for the 21st of March, the claimant has paid the £25 court charge to proceed with this case, I have till the 7th to give the court and claimant the documents i wish to rely at the hearing, im not sure what i need to do right now, any help, thank you in advance. 

[AndyOrch]

And prepare and file and serve a statement along with your disclosure of documents ?

 

Andy

[apahtan]

this is the letter i have  

[dx100uk]

time to get on with your witness statement then.

[apahtan]

Hi guys, I'm feeling massively panicked now that this case is actually going to court - which I didn't expect!

24 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

time to get on with your witness statement then.

 - some advice? Not sure where to start at this point, my heart is just racing.

Is this the point where I bring up the incorrect information about the placing of the parking permit and the false info about the membership that they claimed to have?

 

[AndyOrch]

Your statement is a particularised version of your initial defence...in your own words of the events and happenings and why you are defending the claim.Take a look at other threads to see how to format the statement and layout.

 

Oh and calm down....its far worse going to the dentists than court

[ericsbrother]

what this order makes clear is what is expected from you ( and them) and also makes it clear that if they use their usual slapdash autoresponses they will have the evidence chucked out. This places you at a massive advantage as none of their people will turn up so any challenge on the veracity of their witness statement will effectively render it useless. Gladdys normally use a local gun for hire anyway so they wont know what is what. Quite often this isnt even a solicitor so you can challege their rights of audience.

[apahtan]

Thanks Andyorch and ericsbrother for the advice.

 I was researching defence statements and witness statements, would it be possible to mention additional points to my defence - such as the fact that (as mentioned earlier) the letters/signage mention the wrong IPC. Also, I have dug up my lease and no where is it mentioned about parking permits. However, the permits are only given if you are a tenant (3 per household). I was reading about rights of supremacy of contract - could that be applied here? Lastly, what about the instructions provided on the back of the permit, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible to place the permit within the windscreen - is this an argument that can also be bought up.

 

I have written the witness statement (I wasn't sure to include any of the above points - i think I'm not supposed to, so I left them out). I've also included the bit about the appeals but crossed it out as I think it's irrelevant.

The defendant received a parking permit through the lettings agency which provides two permits per household. No additional documentation was provided for the permit, nor were any contracts signed except the lease agreement.

On the day of the event, the permit was on the passenger footwell and was visible from the outside. Any individual looking inside the car would be able to see it from outside.

The defendant appealed the case using an online website form provided by PCM. No response was provided. The defendant followed up the appeal by emailing PCM and was told that if a response was not provided, the defendant should have called within 14 days. Upon calling the number, the defendant encountered instructions to pay the ticket with.  The appeals reply letter provided within the witness statement from the claimant is the first time that the defendant was made aware of its existence.

Gladstones have also provided their witness statement to me. I will post it up shortly.

[dx100uk]

that's not a witness statement..

there are loads of them here for PPC claimforms 

yes post up theirs to ONE multipage pdf read upload

then we can help yours by pulling it apart.

exhibits too

[apahtan]

Currently looking at witness statements in other cases

Evidence_edited.pdf

Witness_statement_edited.pdf

[dx100uk]

safe to say its the usual crap they trot out about all those previous court cases that have no bearing upon your case at all.

and I like the contract to manage the parking area..from 2004 and with no proof its every been paid for or updated since.

this could be fun

[dx100uk]

thread tidied

well done on the pdf's

[apahtan]

Witness statement up.

6 points:

1. Signage is inaccurate - IPC is not an ATA member so Keeper details obtained illegally (?) as PoFA 2012 conditions not met.
2. Signage is confusing - Initially it mentions that parking is only permitted for permit holders (ie. prohibitive) but then goes on to mention a £100 charge
3. Wording used in contract - placing permit within windscreen is physically impossible
4. Contract terms are unfair - £100 for parking is excessive - not sure to include this, not sure about points for elaboration
5. Primacy of contract - permits offered to tenants exclusively. Lease makes no mention of permits but AFAIK permits are only given to tenants via the lettings agency - again not sure if I should keep and elaborate (would need a bit of help)
6. £60 DCA charge is excessive and unfair - need to elaborate this too.
7. Was thinking of adding in the permit was visible as it was in footwell.

Here it is:

I, defendant, OF 1 Street, Postcode WILL SAY AS FOLLOW:

 

1.    The defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle with registration of CARREG.

 

2.       Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which the defendant wishes to rely upon:

 

                                 i.            The sign (‘the alleged Contract’)

                               ii.            The parking permit

                             iii.            Definition of the terms ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary

                             iv.            A letter from the claimant discussing the appeals rejection

                               v.            A copy of the lease agreement the defendant was provided through the lettings agency – which supplied the parking permit

 

3.       The claimant claims in paragraph 18 of the Witness Statement that ’signage (…) has been audited and approved by the International Parking Community (“the IPC”)’. However, under the supposed contract, shown in Figure 1 which the claimant claims the defendant entered into, the contract terms mention the “Independent Parking Committee”. The claimant cannot claim to be a member of an organisation which was no longer in existence. In documentation received by the defendant, the claimant has also claimed that they were a member of the International Parking Community.

 

4.       Specifically, the claimant obtained the registered keeper details without following proper protocol as under the contract terms, the Independent Parking Committee is not a member of a Governmental Accredited Trade Organisation as required by Section 56, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, details for the registered keeper were obtained illegally.

 

5.       The claimant claims in paragraph 11 of the Witness Statement that ‘The terms of the signage on the land are unambiguous in nature’. The defendant wholly disagrees with this statement. As can be seen in Figure 1 of the contract, the signage mentions ‘A valid parking permit (must be displayed) within the windscreen’. Figure 3 shows the definition of the word ‘within’ as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘inside’. That is, the permit must be placed inside the windscreen. This is physically impossible, therefore, this contract cannot be adhered to even with a permit as the claimant claims. Figure 4 shows an appeals rejection letter from the claimant. The wording used to place the permit is ‘affix to the windscreen’. Once again, this shows that the claimants own staff recognise the wording used in the signage as inappropriate.

 

6.       Furthermore, the signage of the contract is contradictory in nature. The signage mentions that ‘Parking is permitted for (valid permit holders only)’ which implies that parking without a valid permit is prohibited and so is not an offer of a contract. However, the signage later states any individual parking ‘agree(s) to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100…’. This contradicts the claimants statement that the signage is unambiguous as this now implies an offer of contract.

 

7.       It can be claimed that the ‘so-called offer’ in the contract is unfair.***

 

8.       Since the permit is provided exclusively to tenants and tenants are offered a permit through the lettings agency, not through the claimant. Therefore, the lease agreement holds primacy of contract. The lease document contains no mention of conditions exercised by the claimant so do not have any right for imposing this unfair charge on the defendant.

 

9.       The claimant has unfairly added £60. ***

[dx100uk]

take apart why each of the court cases the use in their WS are not applicable to your case

not illegal[ly] [as that's criminal cases in a magistrates court] - yours is a civil case and unlawful - county court]