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]

You've focused way too heavily on signage in my view, and you've only thrown in the point about the boundary map at the death

- this being, arguably, your strongest point of defence.

 

I'd be looking to get this point in straight away [having first set the scene and outlined the cause of action]

 - "The Claimant's assertion that a contract was created between them and the Defendant is denied.

A contract cannot have been created between the Claimant and Defendant because The Vehicle was not parked on land managed by the claimant" - clearly indicated and supported by images.

 

Then, say something like, "not withstanding this crucial point, which is fatal to the Claimant's case, had the Defendant actually been bound by the terms of parking for the land managed by the Claimant, a breach for "double parking" cannot have occurred because no such term existed on the signage [referred to and relied upon by the Claimant as "the contract"] on the dates the charges were issued". You can add on that the management agent explicitly approved your request to park two vehicles in your allocated space - albeit, it was a verbal agreement.

 

You should really also have the point about the signage change earlier in your WS. Make it stand out!

Give it its own heading and cut to the chase....

 

"The Claimant avers that their signage contains a term which explicitly forbids "double parking" and has disclosed a photo of their sign, dated 06/12/2019.

 

This does not evidence their pleading that the same sign was on display on the dates the charges were issued to the Defendant - only images taken on the date(s) of the alleged contraventions should be provided in support of this point.

 

The Defendant's position remains, that the signage on display on the dates of the alleged contraventions, and relied upon by the Claimant as the contract, did not contain any such term, but  this was in fact added in at a later date and is now being misleadingly used by the Claimant.

 

The Court is referred to appendix ABC, which is a photo of the signage, taken by the Claimant on xx/xx/201x, and clearly supports the Defendant's position.

 

The Court is also referred to the Defendant's appeal transcript, where the Claimant implies that their signage did indeed lack a term relating to "double parking", and seems to be of the belief that the lack of such term on the signage can still form a contract.

 

The Court is reminded that The Vehicle was not actually parked on land managed by the Defendant".

 

You have to almost tell it as a story, but making each and every point have impact and weight. Straight to the point...the judge will appreciate that.

 

You also haven't mentioned my suggestion about the IPC's CoP requiring the operator to display signage at the site entrance

- which the claimant hasn't in this case.

 

I'd be using this.

It's part of what supposedly makes their signage form a valid and enforceable contract.

They use their IPC membership and compliance as a form of credibility - so, if they don't comply, use it against them.

It's an open goal - take advantage of it. Include the relevant part of the CoP in your appendix.

 

I'd also be putting up some sort of challenge to the £60 collection fees.

 

Anyway, I know it's getting late in the day, but if you aren't careful you could easily end up owing these crooks £700.

[shamrocker]

Just a couple of other points...

 

In p6.1 - I'd not state that you had to park in accordance with T&Cs set out by CPM. Just state that you were allocated a large, generous, parking space as part of your lease agreement, which is situated under the main apartment block. The space is capable of accommodating two vehicles. The Claimant has an agreement to manage the main car park, but this does not extend to the parking spaces under the apartment block. You'd need to fit this into the flow of your WS though...

 

You use the word 'perused' a couple of time - I think you mean to say 'pursued'?

 

Make a clear distinction, when you are challenging the terms of parking, that you are doing so for the avoidance of any doubt, on the basis that "if, let's say, they did apply to me" - but your primary position is that The Vehicle was not parked on land covered by the Claimant's management agreement. They have no locus standi in the matter.

 

Less is more sometimes, so don't get completely bogged down with signage.

Edited January 1, 2020 by shamrocker

[shamrocker]

Yes, just call them up and ask. I've previously found email to be a good option, should you not wish to mess about in queues etc. It might take a couple of days to receive a reply sometimes though.

[shamrocker]

I wouldn't use the fee payment as an indication of their confidence - they probably haven't got a clue about the circumstances of the claim the payment relates to.

[shamrocker]

Well done! They would have known they were in for a good hiding by the judge. All you had to do was expose their blatant weaknesses, which you did.

[shamrocker]

Ah sorry - I though you meant they'd folded. You might get an exciting day out yet then. 

[shamrocker]

Considering the stage you're at with this and the amount at stake, I'd be going the extra mile to ensure I get it over the line. You should only need to present your main arguments anyway - nothing particularly detailed....all the detail is in your WS. Shouldn't demand very much time really.

[shamrocker]

Good luck!

[shamrocker]

Awesome - great stuff!

 

They're lucky it's only £95 they owe you.

 

Bet you're glad it's all been resolved, finally. Was there any mention of the fact the parking space is not on land managed by the claimant?

[shamrocker]

1 minute ago, harni said:

 

No there wasnt. The judge did make a point that my extract from my lease agreement did not cover if a parking space was included however dismissed that point later on based on the fact that the claimant wasnt claiming on the basis of not parking in the correct space but double parking. 

You had a killer argument that was well supported, so it would make sense to not spend time on other arguments which are more difficult to persuade. The claimant isn't particularly clever really, and was  probably just blinded by what they thought would be an easy £600 (your hard earned cash!).