NSGL/QDR PCN claimform - residential - Century Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 5NP - *** Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

If you have received their WS could you please post it up.

If you haven't received it then, could you please defer sending off your WS till the last date before the 9th.

 

You can send it by email. 

 

As for them over charging have a look at this

 

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 

''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty.

 

It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.

 

Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

 

[Cardiff Devil]

I haven't received anything from them yet.  I imagine they're waiting for me to send mine before they send theirs.  I'll hold off on posting it until Monday, as that'll give me a day's grace before the deadline and if they receive it Tuesday they'll struggle to get theirs out before the Wednesday deadline.  If I receive anything from them I'll post it up here.

 

Last time I went to County Court was in 2011 (and as the claimant rather than the defendant) and the other side didn't submit any evidence and didn't actually show up on the day.

[FTMDave]

10 hours ago, Cardiff Devil said:

do I need to put in any kind of summary paragraph or is it fine to go as it is, with the photos and other evidence included?

It's not essential, but a little summary of your arguments at the end wouldn't go amiss.  Have a look at the end of post 61  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419686-vcs-anpr-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-double-dipping-st-marys-gate-retail-park-s1-4qz/page/3/#comments

 

However, wait till the last minute before filing it in case the fleecers send theirs first.

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers Dave

 

The deadline is Wednesday, and I'm too much of a chicken to wait until tomorrow to post it.  So I'm getting it out end of day today so it arrives tomorrow.

[Cardiff Devil]

Quick question before I post this out, is the claimant copy going back to the parking company or to their solicitors?

[dx100uk]

always sols

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers DX.  Into the post it goes.  

[Cardiff Devil]

Their WS has arrived.  I don't have access to a scanner at the moment so I can't upload it but it consists of a witness statement from their solicitor, a copy of the PCN and all the letters, pictures of my car in situ, random pictures of the signage across the site (most of which is nowhere near where the vehicle was parked), a copy of a contract (dated 2015) and some other assorted gumpf.

 

Some points of note;

 

Referring to my court defence, they've written;

 

[quote]

The defence amounts to a bare denial and does not comply with 16.5(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which state:

 

Where the defendant denies an allegation;

 

a.  he must state his reasons for doing so; and

 

b.  if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimaint, he must state his own version.

 

The defence ought to be struck out accordingly.

[/quote]

 

Can they request a defence be struck out like this?  Surely I'm within my rights to simply deny an allegation as it's for them to prove rather than for me to disprove?

 

Something else I've noticed.  The contract they've sent is the one I uploaded in post #51.  It's between NSGL (the claimant) and a company called Warwick Estates.  However in the witness statement it refers to Warwick Estates as a "managing agent appointed to administer the day to day running of the buildings and the estate".

 

So if I'm right, the contract they've provided is not with the landowner, but a different managing agent.  So there's no chain of authority back to the landowner as there's no evidence of any contract between Warwick Estates and the actual landowner.   Would this be enough to discredit their case?

 

Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

 

Cheers

CD

 

[dx100uk]

we ideally need to see it all very quickly so if we need to adapt your WS it can be done today 

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi DX

 

My WS has already been sent and was received by the other side's solicitors yesterday (I sent it tracked via courier and have the delivery receipt).  I may be able to upload some parts of it in a bit using my phone camera but I'm at work and won't be able to upload the whole thing (it's about 50 pages).

 

Cheers

CD

[FTMDave]

I'm not an expert but I've never seen an example of a judge striking out a defence like they are asking, and as you are a Litigant in Person and allowed a little leeway I highly doubt a judge would do so.

 

Most of their WS will be cut & pasted tripe about the private parking industry and NGSL's sterling work within it, which we don't really need to see.

 

However if there is stuff that looks relevant and could undermine your case then yes, send those bits with your phone, even if the format is dodgy we can sort it out at this end.

 

Your comments about the contract are spot on.

[brassnecked]

Will definitely as FTMDave indicates be a cut#. paste jonbby, is there lashings of Beavis in there to justify any Unicorn feed tax?  They won't get a strike out  at least they did it without sight of yours so they will have filled it with waffle and stuff of no relevance. Do put up as much as you can of it.

[dx100uk]

post hidden

put everything including the exhibits into ONE multipage PDF not 1 page to a PDF.

read upload carefully and see the merge websites listed.

 

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Sorry DX, let's try that again;

 

 

WS Combined.pdf

[dx100uk]

you've a few pages still missing 

they cant claim all those costs esp the trace fee and the pre litigation-  litigation fee.

[Cardiff Devil]

Yeah that's not all the pages, I left out a few parts that were just saying "We sent the defendant a letter" etc that don't really have any importance.  I just uploaded the significant parts.

 

I'm not sure how they can justify £70 for sending 2 template letters.

 

Also £12 for "trace fees"?  Last time I checked it only cost about 2 quid for them to request keeper details from the DVLA.

[dx100uk]

What you might think is worthless might be the key

 

we need everything.. Inc exhibits please

 

the trace fee will be the trace agent not dvla 

Dx

[brassnecked]

Its surprising what gems you find in the "unimportant" bits.  Especially  if are suing Keeper.

[Cardiff Devil]

claimants full ws

774262966_claimantsfullWS.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Looking at their WS it is a pity you were so quick to send yours.

 

For instance on their point 24 they claimed that their administrative costs are the actual costs incurred by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant's breach of contract. Really? Really? Is it not a fact that ZZPS work on a  £60 or £70 charge for collecting outstanding PcNs on a "No Win No Fee" basis? Hard to see that ZZPS won this case so why is their fee being included.

 

Alternatively, if these are genuine fees  [haha] then it follows that when ZZPS do win for their client, that the extra charges over the £100 would be another £140. You cannot accuse NGSL of lying in Court but you can say that the statement above does cast doubts on the veracity of the Statement of Truth signed by the paralegal. Hopefully you will be able to raise it in Court since their WS arrived after you had sent yours.

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers LFI

 

I had to send the WS when I did otherwise there was a chance it wouldn't arrive in time.  On the plus side though it looks like both WS's crossed in the post so they wouldn't have had any visibility of mine before they sent theirs.  

 

My main point I want to raise is that the contract they've provided isn't with the landowner but a managing agent.  Do you think it's worth spending the £3 to do a land registry search to confirm for sure that the managing agent is not also the landowner?

 

Cheers

CD

[lookinforinfo]

Warwick Estates were as you say just managing agents. There is no link between them and the land owners as there should be.

 

The new managing agents CW Estates CEO is Mark James.

There is an interesting article about him, but is no help in your case-

 

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: Century Wharf - Mark James’ take-over bid

CARMARTHENPLANNING.BLOGSPOT.COM

---

As a follow on post from 'Tangled webs' , yet again we see that one of the police suspects, currently languishing under criminal investigat...

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Thanks LFI.  Not really applicable in my case but interesting reading nonetheless.

 

Speaking of which, I've been doing some research in the meantime and have found this;

 

Residential Parking – fightback guide

WWW.PARKINGCOWBOYS.CO.UK

---

The following piece is based on the Parking Prankster's guide to residential parking. It explains how to fight tickets in residential parking situations, often where landholders get unfairly ticketed in their own space. There are many...

 

Interesting points regarding the Beavis case here;

 

In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The Supreme Court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be hard to establish commercial justification for charging residents hundreds of pounds a year to park in their own parking spaces.

 

I pointed out in my WS already that the circumstances of the Beavis case were vastly different and that there can be no "commercial justification" for the charges, as these are not commercial premises.  Obviously it's too late now to include the above case in my WS but worth bringing up at the hearing do you think?

 

Apologies for rambling but the hearing is in a few weeks and I just want to make sure I've got everything in order as much as possible, as I've stuck it out this far and can't really afford to lose.

 

Cheers

CD

 

[brassnecked]

If its residential and Manageing Agents have brought in a fleecer, its usually trumped by the Occupier's Supremacy of Contract.  Depends on each lease though and what the wording on parking space allocation says.

[lookinforinfo]

None of the companies we have seen involved are the freeholders at Century Wharf. However if you look at this url which was to do with the flat owners buying out their current managing agents

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CenturyWharf.pdf

 

if you look at the Respondents you will see  Fairford Properties No. 6  ltd. which is a possibility to being the freeholders.

 

There is no reason why you can't ask Land registry just to get confirmation . Whoever it is, NGS do not have their permission from them nor is there a link to them from that contract.