VCS ANPR PCN Claimform - overstay - St Marys Gate Retail Park sheffield

[ericsbrother]

I disagree and the IPC and BPA CoP's state that the parking co must have all of the permissions in place and the POFA requires all companies to abide by their ATA CoP.

 

Now a big problem is most councils dont care about breaches of the 2007 Act wheh it comes to advertising signs and there is nothing they can do as far as punishing the wrongdoer goes but they can and will enforce if you can show then where things are wrong.

 

Nottingham, E sussex and  N Norfolk have all come down on parking co's flouting the law when it has been pointed out to them.

I'm sure there are others as well but the thing is, like with a lack of keeper liability you want to have more than this to arm yourself as most judges wont know and so believe the parking co when they lie to the court.

 

Also some judges will look at INTENT rather than the law hence someone getting clobbered for parking in Manchester when there were no signs let alone proper ones with permission.

 

Now you need to take the fight to them on these issues and as you have requested sight of their contracts, permissions etc

you make the point about the lack of authority and force them to show what they have by making a meal of it in your WS, where you drag up all of these points to at least leave a doubt in the mind of the judge about the reliability fo VCS as a witness and that may well win you the day rather than any individual point being the killer argument

[andythepandy93]

On 07/08/2019 at 23:25, Mrs O'Frog said:

Contends rather than contents.

Ah yes, thanks for spotting that!

[andythepandy93]

Is there any harm in me mentioning the planning permission issue in my defence even if in a case where it wouldn't help?

Need to get this dealt with today, as I'm tempted to submit what I wrote in the previous message (with typos corrected)

[ericsbrother]

you use every bit of ammunition you can

 

so yes you use it and you also copy out the 2007 Act and add that to your bundle as well so you can show the judge that their signage and cameras (1995 act if on poles rather than attached to building ) do need PP and are not deemed consent or permitted development.

 

They will argue that deemed consent under s 2 applies but it doesnt as that is for "informational" signage like bus stops and railway station name signs. They are ADVERTISING a unilateral offer of a contract, not telling you about fire exits.

Worth using this sort of comparison as well.

 

so you say there is no evidence of then having the permission rather than going on about the weak unclear responses from the council- keep it short and simple

[andythepandy93]

So I'm going to submit the following to MCOL unless anyone raises any objections

 

The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any 
authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public by way 
of an assignment from the proprietor to do the same and to make 
civil claims in their own name. The Defendant contends that the 
Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can 
be no claim.

The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any 
evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and 
signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. The 
Defendant contends that such permission was never sought nor 
granted therefore there can be no claim. 

[Browntrout]

If that is all you are going to submit and you havent missed anything out i would suggest that defence will get struck out once past allocation as it offers no prospect of success. Not suggesting you put waffle in but you need more substantive grounds 

[dx100uk]

 

14 minutes ago, andythepandy93 said:

So I'm going to submit the following to MCOL unless anyone raises any objections

 

The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any 
authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public by way 
of an assignment from the proprietor to do the same and to make 
civil claims in their own name. The Defendant contends that the 
Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can 
be no claim.

The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any 
evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and 
signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. The 
Defendant contends that such permission was never sought nor 
granted therefore there can be no claim. 

 

yes good to go..

less is more 

 

dx

 

[Browntrout]

6 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

 

yes good to go..

less is more 

 

dx

 

And what is your suggestion if the defence is struck out?

There is no reponse at all to the parking  event at all. Judges do no like technically defences these days

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

A bits gone from before?

Parking was limited to 1 hrs, but who can change that when i bet the org planning by the council said otherwise typically 3 hrs?

[Browntrout]

The OP has now submitted their defence after taking advice on another parking forum, they have looked at defences which have been done by a legally qualified poster (CILEX registered,and a law degree and well known and respected in the "parking industry) after being advised that the defence they suggested posting on its own was told it was a loosing defence.

 

Lets hope they end up winning their case.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Browntrout

[AndyOrch]

Is the OP not able to confirm this ?  How do you know what the OP has done without it being posted to the thread Browntrout ?

[Browntrout]

The OP has posted on the MSE parking forum 

[AndyOrch]

Okay ...thanks for the clarification

[ericsbrother]

nothing wrong with the reasonaing behind the defence but I would have stated " no contract was created so no cause for action because...."

[andythepandy93]

thanks, but I assume it's too late now. i was sitting tight right up until 4pm for a reply on the other forum but none came so I assumed it was good to go. let's hope it's enough

[ericsbrother]

If they want to waste time and money challenging thsi before an alloction for a hearing expect a CMO ordering you to put in a more detailed defence. For reasons of cost they wont be doing that though ut they may well ask for it to be struck out as part of their WS and as you will be filling it in with whipped cream and strawberries so it is nice and fat that wont wash.

[andythepandy93]

For future reference, my case lost. I now owe £265.20.

[honeybee13]

I'm very sorry to hear that.

 

Can you tell us what happened in court please?

 

HB

[dx100uk]

not surprising as you went elsewhere and ignored us without an update for 4 months

 

only got yourself to blame .  or more correctly certain people there

 

a valuable lesson to learn for future readers...

 

 

[andythepandy93]

Quote

Can you tell us what happened in court please?

I lost.

I'm not wasting any more time on this - it has sucked up so much of my time since 2015.

My advice to those in the future thinking of challenging is to take what some people say on these forums with a pinch of salt, and just consider paying - when you look at the hours you will spend researching and preparing, £100 seems like NOTHING. Just some fair advice from someone who has gone through the process.

 

Thanks for the all the good input that was given, I appreciate your time.

[andythepandy93]

@dx100uk why always on the aggression?

you are an unpleasant person to deal with

[dx100uk]

no I don't like seeing people had.

 

dx