Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket ***Dismissed again with costs***

[shamrocker]

There are bits in that which need to be removed. I'm sure you're on top of it, but thought I'd mention it anyway

[shamrocker]

Could you give me some idea as to what needs removing? I’d appreciate any comments.

 

See bits marked as red below.

 

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of claimicon dated 19th December 2018 regarding being “parked outside of marked bay”. It certainly gave us something to laugh about!

 

I am writing to inform you that I have no intention whatsoever in paying your fictitious invoice and I welcome seeing yourselves and Simon in court.

 

I’m sure you are aware that your initial legal costs aren’t worth the paper they are written on and to date, you have still failed to create liability.

 

I hope this will be the last waste of paper I see from yourselves however, if not I am more than happy to defend this matter in court. I would also like to make you aware that I intend on raising a counterclaim should this reach court for damages.

 

If you had been bothered to do the tiniest bit of due diligence, you would have seen that not only does the driver enjoy supremacy of contract but to put the icing on the cake has a written agreement from your clients to park as they did". And right at the end "Obviously I will request full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (Civil Procedureicon Rule 27.14(2)(g))

[shamrocker]

Didn't their appeal response state that the breach was "not parking within the confines of a marked bay", or words to that effect? They also mention something about yellow lines, which I failed to understand (unless it was to explain their logic behind a lack of signage).They don't appear to know what they're trying to pin you on though - seems a bit made up as they go along.

 

Do you have any pics of the bay and how the vehicles are positioned when parked as you do?

 

It would be interesting to see a map of the area they have an agreement to manage. I'd be surprised if it extends within the footprint of the building, essentially where your parking space is positioned.

 

Even if it does cover that area, the signage prevents you from parking in your own space, as your space is not "a marked bay". Yet they contradict that by stating that double parking isn't allowed, which in so doing, legitimises the position you parked as a bonafide parking space (despite not being marked).

 

Also, the signs are situated on the opposite side of the car park, next to what appear to be "marked bays" - therefore, you could reasonably argue that the parking terms apply to those spaces only. No signs on the entrance would support that argument, as how else can it be determined that the same terms apply to areas of the land other than where those signs are situated?

 

You'd have a field day if these chancers go the court route.

[shamrocker]

That's interesting. Have you advised them that your vehicles were not parked nor ticketed within the area they've identified as being under their management, and subject to the terms they're trying to enforce upon you?

[shamrocker]

If this were the case...

 

Yes, IF. It's for them to support that claim. Have they?

 

It also means that parking in that area is not authorised - so I cannot see how any contract can be created on that basis, as you have not parked under the terms of their signage, but on your own separate space. Perhaps EB can advise better.

 

Have they stated an observation time frame?

 

Just reading the appeal correspondence back again. They state that they are seeking Keeper liability in accordance with POFA, yet the NOK was issued 24 days after the event. A minimum of 28 days must pass. Therefore, they don't comply, and you could have them for breach of data protection too.

 

They mention that guests have parked in "no parking areas". If they're implying that you've parked in a "no parking area" then that is a forbidding term, so does not include an offer of any sort. It's not as if you're "obstructing" others or parking "inconsiderately as this", even if overhanging the invisible red line.

 

Actually, they do state that the vehicle was parked "over an area of no parking", which gives you something firm to grip onto on the forbidding term argument. There are case examples to support this.

 

Finally, before I bow out for the evening, they refer to the site map, and you being perked over the red line. How are you supposed to know where that line is situated, particularly when there isn't even a single sign fixed to that side of the "communal area"?

[shamrocker]

Who is Simon?

[shamrocker]

What's his link with Countrywide Parking Management Limited?

[shamrocker]

Personally, I wouldn't bother mentioning the company directors - but that's me. I'd also suggest adding the parting shot about costs back in.

 

As per FTMDave above, send it by post, but get proof of posting.

 

Don't email anything to them nor provide an email address for correspondence (albeit you already have). Just ignore their emails, or block if possible. Keep correspondence minimal and strictly by post.

[shamrocker]

The flip side is they aren't generally clever enough to get it all right - or at least their legal representation are too lazy or incompetent. They clearly have no conscience whatsoever, and deserve to be dealt with accordingly.

[shamrocker]

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.

[shamrocker]

Have you written this all yourself?

[shamrocker]

Did they send you a copy of the management agreement with the landowner?

 

What date do you need to submit your defence by? Don't do it just yet if you've still got time. I think it may benefit from a little refinement.

[shamrocker]

Harni... just a slight correction to EB's defence - it's "locus standi", not stando.

[shamrocker]

One thing you might want to consider is the claimant's reason for the charge, as mentioned in your appeal - being that parking was not allowed in the area your vehicle was parked. This is prohibitive, this not an offer of contract at all. You could also argue that the signage did not apply to the side of the carpark where you were parked, thus no terms of parking applied.

 

It's always as well to have  as many angles of defence as you can.

[shamrocker]

Regards the signage - you have a copy of the original signage posted on here, so use that against them. A judge won't take kindly to them trying to mislead in that way.

 

Ultimately, if it states on the ticket that the reason was double parking, then that's what you are defending against. Is that what it explicitly states on the tickets?

[shamrocker]

There is a space for comment on the N180 where you can state that you wish to object to any request by the Claimant for an "on the papers" hearing.

I wouldn't worry about the permits term, as the non-display of a permit is not the apparent cause for action against you. Have you sent them a CPR request for documentation?

[shamrocker]

Did they supply you with copies of the tickets and NOKs that relate to the claim?

[shamrocker]

Any chance you could scan the tickets and NOKs and post them up here?

Cover any personal details, reference numbers, etc first though.

[shamrocker]

It's all a bit loose tbh. You've got week to get it in, so I'm sure we'll get something better pulled together. Have they served their WS on you yet? I'd prefer to see what weaknesses it presents before working too hard on yours. Even if it's a day or two late, it shouldn't harm.

 

You still haven't posted up the tickets and notices to keeper I asked about further up.

[shamrocker]

Harni... when these tickets were issued due to double parking, did only one vehicle receive a ticket, and was it the one allegedly overhanging the area they supposedly manage (tarmac)?

 

Did you send a CPR request upon receiving the claim form?

Edited December 30, 2019 by shamrocker

[shamrocker]

Ok... can you bring forward their POC and your defence - paste them in a new post here. I'm struggling for time to do much looking today.

[shamrocker]

Just looking in. Had a quick skim of their WS... interesting. I'll try to comment more either tonight or tomorrow.

 

Your WS will ideally need a bit of a re-write though, to give more flow, hit on harder main points of defence, and also remove some stuff that's not relevant.

 

Have you looked into the lack of signage at the entrance? Take a look at the IPC Code of Practice regarding signage, specifically at the entrance of the site being managed. This is just in addition to the points that have already been raised here and In your WS.

Edited December 31, 2019 by shamrocker

[shamrocker]

You've blanked out the contravention details - what does it say there? This is important, so we need to know.

[shamrocker]

 

38 minutes ago, harni said:

It’s a table with the 3 ticket numbers on, the time and date of contravention and the reg number. I blanked it out for the reg and the ticket numbers. You’re not missing anything that isn’t already listed elsewhere. 

 

Ah ok - fair enough.

 

You need to use your appeal transcript against them when making the argument about there being no term which forbids double parking, as they pretty much imply that none exists on the signage, but instead refer to communications supposedly given out by the management company (which counts for nothing). All the while, deny that they have any locus standi in the matter, as the land on which your vehicle was parked, and where you have parking rights, is not within the area for which the parking company is responsible.

 

Note also that their WS refers to their accredited body - this is a good opening to arguing the point about lack of signage at the entrance. Their lack of compliance invalidates any contract they claim to be offering - albeit, they have no rights on the land upon with you parked anyway. Keep dropping in the point about your parking space not being on the land they are allowed to manage.

 

When you make a point, always try to qualify it with something, where appropriate. Don't just say, for example... "there should be signage at the entrance" or "the signs are not big enough" etc - qualify your assertions.

 

You also shouldn't be delivering the WS to the parking company - everything goes to their legal representatives.

Edited December 31, 2019 by shamrocker

[shamrocker]

35 minutes ago, harni said:

Taking into accounts your comments above (Which are really appreciated), i have pretty much rewritten my WS which is attached. Again any last minute comments are really appreciated. This is being hand delivered to the court tomorrow at 9am and posted off to BW.

Witness statement version 2 REDACTED.pdf 56.72 kB · 2 downloads

 

I'm reading it now. Feedback coming shortly..... albeit, I'm sure you don't want to be making more changes.