PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services

Coupon-mad · 9 July 2017 at 5:07PM

Please show us their WS and all attachments, sign photos and landowner contract, all evidence.

Use Dropbox and show us all of it, and we'll help rip it apart.

SR06 · 9 July 2017 at 9:33PM

Link to their WS
https://www.dropbox.com/s/duhs3fa9be8xye0/WS_IndiaBeavan.pdf?dl=0

In 12. they're using the notice attached to the windscreen against us.

Our WS is based on that
1. The lease giving right to park in the allocated bay

2. NtK, POFA not complied with on
a) state the period the car was parked – the Claimants Notice to Keeper states a PCN issue time of
17:04 but does not state the period that the vehicle was parked, thus POFA not complied with
b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified
period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full - Notice to Keeper omits
this, thus POFA not complied with.
c) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the
resolution of disputes or complaints that are available – rather than offer a discount for prompt
payment, the Claimants Notice to Keeper has increased the charge from the £100 shown on the sign
to £150. The Claimants Notice to Keeper states that that “the opportunity to appeal against this
charge is no longer available”, thus POFA not complied with.

3. Driver has not been identified as was the case in
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/india-beavan-agrees-to-drop-millenium.html

This case is very similar to ours as Millennium took a motorist to court for parking in a spot which the resident had rights to park. The keeper was not a resident, but had the resident's permission to park.

Difference being is that the RK was not driving on the day and the driver has not been identified.

What are your thoughts on their WS? Do you think those photos showing the vehicle parked in the visitors spot at the two different time stamps is enough to prove exceeded max stay 24 hours?

Appreciate any input.

Coupon-mad · 9 July 2017 at 11:32PM

LOL! Look at the WS point #24, what a crappy Gallstones error from their cut & paste robo-claim WS. It says:

''the rules here just happen to be that to park, they need to be an authorised vehicle actively loading and unloading to commercial premises of Heath parade'' !!

And India Beavan has signed that, as a statement of truth. Oh Yeah? Heath Parade is a well-known scam site operated in a completely different part of the Country, by PCM UK, not her Company!

You must question her on that at the hearing. It calls into question her truthfulness and evidence in its entirety and proves that the so called WS was not even her words. Can't have been. She would not have alluded to Heath Parade!

I would also ask her in person to explain the relevance of 'her' football analogy in Alder v Moore. I think she will struggle because I don't think it's her words here at all in this WS which appears to have been written for her by Gallstones and she could be asked that question direct, looking at her squarely in the eyes. If she denies it, ask how the Heath Parade sentence found its way in there!

She's not great at cross-examination, we hear:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/millenium-lose-copper-quarter.html

Bloody unhelpful that the Blaney case was lost, and they will now all use that transcript, as has happened here in your case. Grrr. First time I've read the transcript (I knew the case was lost; a friend/contact told me...). It really does not help at all.

SR06 · 17 July 2017 at 11:18PM

Court date is Fri for us.

We're relying on driver not being identified and the lease giving primacy of contract as our defence.

I'm going to be representing my Mother. Not sure on what to expect on the day...

Tried to post our WS on here but got the ip blocked because of copying and pasting from word.

Coupon-mad · 17 July 2017 at 11:33PM

Make sure Mum knows she might still be asked questions, this surprised another Lay Rep.

You must tear into the witness about her signing a statement of truth with spoon fed words from an old draft written by G's for PCM. The 'Heath Parade' comment cannot possibly be her words, therefore the entire statement can be viewed as suspect.

SR06 · 18 July 2017 at 9:07AM

Thanks.

Would like to submit a skeleton argument for the day. Is there a deadline for that?

Any ideas how to get the case referenced in this article?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/india-beavan-agrees-to-drop-millenium.html?m=1

Millennium Door And Event Security v Mr X. 09/06/2017. C7GF0Y0M. Swansea. DJ Scannel

Coupon-mad · 18 July 2017 at 9:43PM

You can't get cases unless the parties involved pay for a transcript. Almost no case has one, from county court. But you can include Prankster Blogs about cases to illustrate your skeleton, if you think it helps.

Skeleton argument can be filed a couple of days before the hearing, along with your costs schedule.

SR06 · 20 July 2017 at 9:41AM

So should I bring up that the 'Heath Parade' comment cannot possibly be her words, therefore the entire statement can be viewed as suspect at the very start of the hearing?

Our two main arguments for the defence tomorrow are that the driver has not been identified and the lease giving rights to park.

In their WS (https://www.dropbox.com/s/duhs3fa9be8xye0/WS_IndiaBeavan.pdf?dl=0), they are saying (page 2 of WS) their NtK (pages 13 & 17 of WS) are POFA compliant because

a. The vehicle, land, date and time the charge was issued was specified;
b. Paragraph 2 informed the keeper that the driver was required to pay the parking charge and that the charge has not been paid;
c. they confrimed that a NtD (PCN) has beenissued;
d. they confirmed that my Company does not know the name and address for the driver;
e. They invite the keeper to pay the charge or notify my Company of the name and address for the driver;
f. The requirement is to inform of ANY discount rate had passed;
g. They stated how to make a payment and to whom;
h. The date the notices were sent were specified; and
i. They were sent in the prescribed period (within 56 days of the PCN being ussued).

We are going to argue that the NtK, POFA not complied with on

i) state the period the car was parked – the Claimants Notice to Keeper states a PCN issue time of
17:04 but does not state the period that the vehicle was parked, thus POFA not complied with

ii) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified
period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full - Notice to Keeper omits
this, thus POFA not complied with.

iii) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the
resolution of disputes or complaints that are available – rather than offer a discount for prompt
payment, the Claimants Notice to Keeper has increased the charge from the £100 shown on the sign
to £150. The Claimants Notice to Keeper states that that “the opportunity to appeal against this
charge is no longer available”, thus POFA not complied with.

Any thoughts on how the judge will look at this? And if the judge agrees with them, does that mean that they can chase the RK? Is that the end of that part of the defence?

On the Lease giving rights to park in allocated bay and visitor bay. I have filed evidence of this in our WS and will take the full Lease on the day. I'm guessing that they'll argue that the signage overides the Lease, how should we argue this part?

Have read through the Blaney case a few times now... doesn't make me feel good about tomorrow.

Really appreciate any input on the above. Thanks

waamo · 20 July 2017 at 10:30AM

So should I bring up that the 'Heath Parade' comment cannot possibly be her words, therefore the entire statement can be viewed as suspect at the very start of the hearing?

Very much so. Point out her company doesn't infest that site.

Coupon-mad · 20 July 2017 at 11:40AM

so should i bring up that the 'heath parade' comment cannot possibly be her words, therefore the entire statement can be viewed as suspect at the very start of the hearing?

of course - yes!!!

PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free