Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 31st Oct 16, 11:17 PM
    • 157Posts
    • 77Thanks
    infernouk
    PCM Ticket whilst parked outside a friends house visiting, do i pay?
    • #1
    • 31st Oct 16, 11:17 PM
    PCM Ticket whilst parked outside a friends house visiting, do i pay? 31st Oct 16 at 11:17 PM
    Hey guys

    I was at a friends house for an hour today parked outside their house at around 7pm, ive done this before, but this time i came out to find a PCM parking ticket for £60 on my window!

    They claim its a permit only area 24/7 (theres no markings or bays etc its just a cul de sac street) and I didnt have a permit (Friend has one for me to use just we didnt think it mattered that late at night and with no bay or line markings)

    There may have been signs around, it was 7pm and pitch black so I didnt see anything and have visited before with no issue so it cant be patrolled regularly.

    I was wondering is this something to pay or fight? what are PCM like? we have permits for the house just it wasnt in the window and this isnt enforced frequently in the area, theres no other parking nearby either so i cant see how this is even unavoidable!

    Thanks for the advice im a little annoyed and confused!
Page 9
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 17, 7:44 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As i assume i have to share it to Gladstone regardless?
    Yes, everything goes to Gladstones & the court.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 15th Jul 17, 10:54 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    Yes, everything goes to Gladstones & the court.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    did you see the download link? ive got my statement in there if theres any chance you or anyone can spare a look over to make sure its the right sort of thing it would be greatly appreciated!
    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 17th Jul 17, 8:15 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    Sorry to bump the post, but can anyone spare a moment to look at the docs i prepared for my witness statement before i submit to make sure im on the right lines? Here is the link again:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/me8kyef9w43msk6/AAD3cYJ2CjRrdYdVbpS-QP7Ua?dl=0

    It would be much appreciated!
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 21st Jul 17, 1:41 AM
    • 302 Posts
    • 519 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Sorry i've been away. Hope this is still in time.

    If they fancy some arguments, try incorporating some of the below (and if i'm still in time). Your version is not a bad first draft, but it reads as though you are angry... best take some of the heat/emotion out (if possible). This is not a pleading - it includes my comments to you, so read and use the bits you need only.

    PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
    There is no evidence that the Claimant wanted to include more detailed particulars of claim and was unable to do so by the constraints of the system. The character limitation should not be deployed as a basis for failure to plead his case properly. In any event the MCOL system guidance specifically states:

    If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more
    detailed particulars on the defendant, please tick the box that appears after the statement ‘you may
    also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant’


    If the Particulars fail to refer to NOTICE (i.e. that you were on notice of the permit scheme and had agreed to it by not rejecting it) then they should be debarred from alleging that you were aware of the terms of the scheme or agreed to them - this must be specifically pleaded (CPR Part 16 PD 16 para 8.2). If the pre-action correspondence does not refer to CONDUCT (that your continued use of the permit scheme constituted agreement to the scheme) then you can and should argue that this is a wholly new point, that should have been pleaded and that they should be debarred from running the claim on this basis also. Those are novel arguments made in the statement. It is an abuse of process.

    Until re-pleaded with the signage, the Claimant failed to set out clearly the precise terms of the contract breached or, for example, the hours of operation of the contract. If the pre-action correspondence has not set out the full terms of the wording of any signage and nor does the Particulars, I believe that you should argue that it is unclear what, if any, contractual term has been breached. Merely setting out the registration of your car, the date and a fee sought, is nothing more than a request for payment not detail of why the debt is said to be owed – it is not for nothing that the document is described as Particulars. This is in the context of a professional claimant.

    CHARGE
    If £50 is automatically levied as a result of a failure to pay within 28 days, that would appear not to have any basis in actual costs incurred, but to be a penalty that is not referred to on any signage and which is, by common consent, a sum which takes the total sum sought in excess of industry recommended maximum. Indeed the signage refers to additional (unspecified) charges MAY be charged, not MUST or WILL. Arguably you did not agree to them.

    Parking Eye v Beavis is not authority that £85 is reasonable, but that it was an appropriate penalty within a commercial scheme, which fulfilled a legitimate business interest (to increase circulation of free spaces on a trading estate). A sum in an amount equal to or excess of £85 may be an unconscionable penalty in a different context such as this one, where the aim of the scheme is discourage unlawful visitors and not penalise or restrict the lawful user of the property.

    CONTRACTUAL ENTITLEMENT
    It is not for the Defendant to prove that the Claimant is not permitted to issue tickets. The Claimant must prove his case. If the Claimant fails to make out his case, the presumption is that the charge shall not apply. The Defendant does not need to prove pre-action that he has a tenancy agreement, although such will be made available to the Court. Conversely, the Claimant does need to prove that he is entitled to ticket before he can reasonably expect a Defendant to pay.

    The Claimant has not pleaded nor previously advanced any argument based on conduct accepting a permit scheme to which the Defendant was never a signatory. The Defendant avers that the Claimant should be debarred from pursuing this argument at this late stage in the proceedings.

    The Defendant does not contend that there was no signage. The Defendant will rely upon Jopson v Homeguard in support of the contention that temporary loading and unloading by his front door is legitimate use of his residence. The Defendant may well have repositioned his vehicle and displayed a permit once he had unloaded heavy supermarket shopping and had he been afforded opportunity to do so.

    It is noted that the Claimant does not contend that the Defendant was not a lawful user or that the Defendant's household was not in possession of a permit to display. It is therefore unlikely to be disputed that the intention of the scheme (namely to prevent third party motorists obstructing the land and use by lawful residents) is not met by enforcement against the Defendant.

    SIGNAGE
    The signage is determinative of the contract between driver and parking company, if one is held to exist. Alder v Moore is an authority which, by and large, has been superseded by the Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis on penalty charges. Even were that not to be the case, it is averred that the Alder matter can be distinguished, relating as it did to a commercial policy of insurance where to allow the Defendant to receive his insurance payment and pay no liquidated damages would have resulted in unjust enrichment.

    The Claimant has failed to demonstrate in his witness evidence how his his company derives any entitlement to grant licenses over the land which exclude the lawful user. Any permitted parking management contract cannot extend to the granting of licences to third parties to use the land as this would operate to the exclusion of the lease, which expressly excludes subletting of any kind. Since the Claimant’s parking scheme is said to operate on this basis alone, it is averred that there is no parking scheme that can be offered.

    To the extent that the Claimant avers that he is entitled to damages in any event (i.e.the “Buckingham Palace example”, notwithstanding that there is no parking facility that can have been provided, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court record as much in their Judgment, such that a claim may be brought against (parking company) for breach of contract and unreasonable conduct in pursuing damages in connection with a contract for which no services have been provided.

    COSTS
    The wrapping up of additional charges with the claim by the Claimant appears to be an attempt to recover legal professional costs which are not permitted or recoverable on the small claims track. TO the extent that the costs are based otherwise the Claimant has provided no evidence as to how these costs are derived and no schedule in support of the same. The Defendant avers that they should be disallowed.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 17, 2:59 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I like that Jonersh, and very handy to see a debunking of Alder v Moore:


    The signage is determinative of the contract between driver and parking company, if one is held to exist. Alder v Moore is an authority which, by and large, has been superseded by the Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis on penalty charges. Even were that not to be the case, it is averred that the Alder matter can be distinguished, relating as it did to a commercial policy of insurance where to allow the Defendant to receive his insurance payment and pay no liquidated damages would have resulted in unjust enrichment.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 21st Jul 17, 6:57 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    hey guys, not too late i have another week! i will be working on this on saturday so this info is fantastic! thanks for your time, i will come back tomorrow with any queries related to it if needs be.

    Really appreciate the help
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Jul 17, 7:13 PM
    • 14,034 Posts
    • 22,042 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Parking Eye v Beavis is not authority that £85 is reasonable, but that it was an appropriate penalty within a commercial scheme, which fulfilled a legitimate business interest (to increase circulation of free spaces on a trading estate). A sum in an amount equal to or excess of £85 may be an unconscionable penalty in a different context such as this one, where the aim of the scheme is discourage unlawful visitors and not penalise or restrict the lawful user of the property.
    This could be bolstered by adding the official tweet from the Supreme Court immediately after the conclusion of the case. ......

    https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

    .... which makes it clear that it relates to 'this particular car park'.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 21-07-2017 at 7:15 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 21st Jul 17, 11:39 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    This could be bolstered by adding the official tweet from the Supreme Court immediately after the conclusion of the case. ......

    https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

    .... which makes it clear that it relates to 'this particular car park'.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    oh very useful thanks! can i submit this as an exhibit in my statement?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 22nd Jul 17, 1:16 AM
    • 302 Posts
    • 519 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I wouldn't as the actual reasoning in a little more nuanced than that, referring to the practice in the UK, rather than confining it to a single car park.

    The fact remains, however, that parking eye neither applies to all ticketing cases nor does it guarantee that £85 or any other sun for that matter will not constitute a penalty.

    If it helps read the press summary which is a more accessible document than the full judgment.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 23rd Jul 17, 3:22 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    Hey guys,

    I have updated the statement based on the feedback and additional info and removed some of the angry statements, added the new defence stuff.

    I feel its quite lengthy? But that my part is needed to paint the picture and then the defence points required to defend the situation, should I be chopping anything in there out?

    Here is a link to the dropbox file, the other exhibits are still on the previous link if needed.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/n04ov8as70xyvbm/My%20Statement%20Redacted%20UPDATE.docx?dl=0

    Really appreciate the help, id be pretty lost without all you guys help! just need to confirm its right before i send it and proceed to the day!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Jul 17, 3:46 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It needs some tidying and to remove repetition (i.e. you talked about students aged 18/21 having permits withheld, twice - cut one out).

    Change this in (b) to 'Defendant' (you!):

    ...and who will be legally represented in this case; against an unrepresented Litigant in Person with no legal knowledge or experience of court process.
    b)This is clearly an attempt to put the claimant at a disadvantage,

    This para doesn't make much sense to me:
    a)The Particulars fail to refer to NOTICE (i.e. that I was on notice of the permit scheme and had agreed to it by not rejecting it) and so the claimant should be debarred from alleging that I was aware of the terms of the scheme or agreed to them (CPR Part 16 PD 16 para 8.2). The pre-action correspondence does not refer to CONDUCT (that continued use of the permit scheme constituted agreement to the scheme), that should have been pleaded and the claimant should be debarred from running the claim on this basis also.

    Remove 'arguably' below, and add the part I've added at the end:
    Indeed, the signage refers to additional (unspecified) charges MAY be charged, not MUST or WILL. Arguably I did not agree to any added 'costs' and the disproportionate parking charge already includes a significant (majority) sum as pure profit for the parking firm, as was recognised by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
    Finally, where you talk about the signs, state in a separate para, that the signs do not relate to nor set out any terms about loading/unloading restrictions, and as such, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no restrictions on reasonable, temporary loading/unloading activity at this multi-occupant accommodation. Your case is very like Jopson v Homeguard - make sure the Judge realises that case was 'on Appeal' (not just another County court first instance decision) and thus, persuasive on the lower courts where the facts are comparable.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 23-07-2017 at 3:48 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 23rd Jul 17, 3:56 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    It needs some tidying and to remove repetition (i.e. you talked about students aged 18/21 having permits withheld, twice - cut one out).

    Change this in (b) to 'Defendant' (you!):

    ...and who will be legally represented in this case; against an unrepresented Litigant in Person with no legal knowledge or experience of court process.
    b)This is clearly an attempt to put the claimant at a disadvantage,

    This para doesn't make much sense to me:



    Remove 'arguably' below, and add the part I've added at the end:


    Finally, where you talk about the signs, state in a separate para, that the signs do not relate to nor set out any terms about loading/unloading restrictions, and as such, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no restrictions on reasonable, temporary loading/unloading activity at this multi-occupant accommodation. Your case is very like Jopson v Homeguard - make sure the Judge realises that case was 'on Appeal' (not just another County court first instance decision) and thus, persuasive on the lower courts where the facts are comparable.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I have revised as suggested, for the confusing para, should i cut it? i suppose what its saying is that the particulars never said i was under the scheme by simply not rejecting it, and that before the claim they didnt highlight continued use of the scheme was an agreement. The particualrs pre claim had literally nothing, the revised particulars when ordered by the court stated i accepted the contract by parking in the space...perhaps it needs some rewording or is it not critical to the case? Ill upload a new version of the document once this point is clarified
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Jul 17, 4:54 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think I would replace the confusing part by saying this (or split this into two points, as it's long!):

    (a)The letter that came with the permit was innocuous and failed to alert residents to any 'contract' which was never explained or identified as a contract, nor that by not rejecting the permits, they and their legitimate visitors would be bound by a penalty not specified in the letter.

    (b) Residents and their authorised visitors cannot be deemed to be fairly bound by the onerous an unexpected repercussions of a 'scheme' by simply not rejecting the permits foisted upon them in unsolicited, unsigned-for mail which was simply not capable of unilaterally varying their rights under their tenancy agreement.

    (c) The letter did not state that binding terms on a sign were incorporated into the permit scheme, nor did it mention loading/unloading which is a normal part of daily life in a site of shared residences. Nor were parking charges/permits mentioned in the tenancy agreement.

    (d) It is trite law that a term of a contract is only incorporated if parties are aware of it before the contract is formed, otherwise the terms come too late. The authority for this is Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 (CA)*

    (e) The letter did not say that residents had any choice to 'opt in' or 'opt out' and what the repercussions might be of either action. This smacks of the type of 'automatic rollover' annual contract disallowed in consumer contracts. It has been identified that such a contract is likely to be most harmful where there are additional problems associated with it, for example where the commercial intent for it, and/or the financial risk, is not disclosed to consumers at the outset.

    (f)** The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply to contracts made both on and away from business premises, as well as contracts such as this one, made 'at a distance' for example by mail. The Regulations require detailed information to be supplied, which the 'permit letter' letter failed to include. It also holds that: Consumers should always be asked to expressly consent to additional charges. Consumers will not be liable for any additional payments that they have not actively consented to and they have the right to request that they are refunded for these payments.

    (g) The guidance on the European Law Directive 2011/83/EU, which resulted in the CCR Regulations states: 'For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive.' There is no exemption for a private parking firm/parking spaces, and traders dealing with consumers and 'offering contracts' cannot exempt themselves from Consumer law.

    (h) Only two permits were provided and were shared as best the students could, on the basis of need as a car arrived, but purely with the expectation that they were complying with a mere request to assist the landlord, to show they were not trespassers. We had no idea we might be bound by unknown and onerous terms, which cannot in any event, disregard the normal rights of way enjoyed under a tenancy or lease.

    (i) The information provided with the permits, coupled with the sparse signage of small print, failed to meet Lord Denning's well-known 'red hand rule'*** as held in Spurling v Bradshaw [1956], "the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it". In the case of Spurling it was decided that some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it (to adequately draw the other parties attention) before the notice could be held to be sufficient. In this case, neither the unsolicited letter attaching the permits, nor the signs, drew any terms fairly or transparently to the attention of residents or their visitors who had no idea there was a 'contract' let alone agreed to it.



    * http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Olley-v-Marlborough-Court.php

    ** http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

    https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

    *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 23-07-2017 at 4:58 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 23rd Jul 17, 5:17 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    I think I would replace the confusing part by saying this (or split this into two points, as it's long!):

    (a)The letter that came with the permit was innocuous and failed to alert residents to any 'contract' which was never explained or identified as a contract, nor that by not rejecting the permits, they and their legitimate visitors would be bound by a penalty not specified in the letter.

    (b) Residents and their authorised visitors cannot be deemed to be fairly bound by the onerous an unexpected repercussions of a 'scheme' by simply not rejecting the permits foisted upon them in unsolicited, unsigned-for mail which was simply not capable of unilaterally varying their rights under their tenancy agreement.

    (c) The letter did not state that binding terms on a sign were incorporated into the permit scheme, nor did it mention loading/unloading which is a normal part of daily life in a site of shared residences. Nor were parking charges/permits mentioned in the tenancy agreement.

    (d) It is trite law that a term of a contract is only incorporated if parties are aware of it before the contract is formed, otherwise the terms come too late. The authority for this is Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 (CA)*

    (e) The letter did not say that residents had any choice to 'opt in' or 'opt out' and what the repercussions might be of either action. This smacks of the type of 'automatic rollover' annual contract disallowed in consumer contracts. It has been identified that such a contract is likely to be most harmful where there are additional problems associated with it, for example where the commercial intent for it, and/or the financial risk, is not disclosed to consumers at the outset.

    (f)** The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply to contracts made both on and away from business premises, as well as contracts such as this one, made 'at a distance' for example by mail. The Regulations require detailed information to be supplied, which the 'permit letter' letter failed to include. It also holds that: Consumers should always be asked to expressly consent to additional charges. Consumers will not be liable for any additional payments that they have not actively consented to and they have the right to request that they are refunded for these payments.

    (g) The guidance on the European Law Directive 2011/83/EU, which resulted in the CCR Regulations states: 'For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive.' There is no exemption for a private parking firm/parking spaces, and traders dealing with consumers and 'offering contracts' cannot exempt themselves from Consumer law.

    (h) Only two permits were provided and were shared as best the students could, on the basis of need as a car arrived, but purely with the expectation that they were complying with a mere request to assist the landlord, to show they were not trespassers. We had no idea we might be bound by unknown and onerous terms, which cannot in any event, disregard the normal rights of way enjoyed under a tenancy or lease.

    (i) The information provided with the permits, coupled with the sparse signage of small print, failed to meet Lord Denning's well-known 'red hand rule'*** as held in Spurling v Bradshaw [1956], "the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it". In the case of Spurling it was decided that some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it (to adequately draw the other parties attention) before the notice could be held to be sufficient. In this case, neither the unsolicited letter attaching the permits, nor the signs, drew any terms fairly or transparently to the attention of residents or their visitors who had no idea there was a 'contract' let alone agreed to it.



    * http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Olley-v-Marlborough-Court.php

    ** http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

    https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

    *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks here is my revision, i split it off as a permit letter response section, my only point to make is that, they are arguing the signage was the contract not this letter? so does spending this much time countering the permit letter miss the point they are arguing or not?

    revised version of the document with all changes is here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/khwp7t0wyrnsia3/My%20Statement%20Redacted%20Updated.docx?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Jul 17, 6:23 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In my view, the ''contract'' issue should be argued in 3 tiers, never mind the signs, they come last:

    1 - the tenancy agreement gives primacy of contract, and grants rights of way, rights to enjoyment of property, and a right to pass and re-pass, to residents and their visitors. No third party can unilaterally vary or remove those rights (Jopson case supports this).

    2 - the letter enclosing the permit attempted to foist a contractual term upon the residents in its own right but it was unsolicited, not explained and not agreed, never explained to be a legally binding obligation.

    3 - this is where signs come in, third in the pecking order. The PPC will say their contract is formed by signs alone but it CANNOT be the case, because the permits they speak of formed part of step 2, the letter. And in any case, the signs are silent about loading/unloading, which is a right already enjoyed by residents in modern leases where common areas exist (again the Jopson case shoots their argument down).



    P.S. You need to remove the *** here, which was a guide from me, to show you where to find the cases to add to your exhibits:
    Lord Denning's well-known 'red hand rule'***
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 23-07-2017 at 6:35 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 25th Jul 17, 6:24 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    In my view, the ''contract'' issue should be argued in 3 tiers, never mind the signs, they come last:

    1 - the tenancy agreement gives primacy of contract, and grants rights of way, rights to enjoyment of property, and a right to pass and re-pass, to residents and their visitors. No third party can unilaterally vary or remove those rights (Jopson case supports this).

    2 - the letter enclosing the permit attempted to foist a contractual term upon the residents in its own right but it was unsolicited, not explained and not agreed, never explained to be a legally binding obligation.

    3 - this is where signs come in, third in the pecking order. The PPC will say their contract is formed by signs alone but it CANNOT be the case, because the permits they speak of formed part of step 2, the letter. And in any case, the signs are silent about loading/unloading, which is a right already enjoyed by residents in modern leases where common areas exist (again the Jopson case shoots their argument down).



    P.S. You need to remove the *** here, which was a guide from me, to show you where to find the cases to add to your exhibits:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks i get what you mean, also i have removed the ***, question, do i add those cases in full as exhibits or something? seems an overwhelming amount of info to get through, this statement is getting to be longer and more comprehensive than my defence, is that bad?

    So is this final version ok to submit and send along with the exhibits, cover letter request to merge claims, and that letter you mentioned about the lack of their witness attendance which I was also going to use.

    link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kbfqrclxwe66o1c/My%20Statement%20Redacted%20Final.docx?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jul 17, 9:20 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    do i add those cases in full as exhibits or something?
    Yes - if you can't find the actual case law ask the BMPA on their website (e.g. I couldn't find Olley v Marlborough court hosted as a transcript anywhere publicly available on first look, so maybe the BMPA have got it or can host it).

    It's OK to be detailed, IMHO, and I am not alone in that.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 25th Jul 17, 9:28 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    Yes - if you can't find the actual case law ask the BMPA on their website (e.g. I couldn't find Olley v Marlborough court hosted as a transcript anywhere publicly available on first look, so maybe the BMPA have got it or can host it).

    It's OK to be detailed, IMHO, and I am not alone in that.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    ok thanks I will try to get hold of them for the exhibits.

    So is that document ok now? no more tweaks required and accurately reflect the situation?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Jul 17, 3:32 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,419 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes - if you can't find the actual case law ask the BMPA on their website (e.g. I couldn't find Olley v Marlborough court hosted as a transcript anywhere publicly available on first look, so maybe the BMPA have got it or can host it).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    No sooner said than done - with thanks to the BMPA:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004299665-Olley-v-Marlborough-Court-Ltd

    Downloadable transcript there.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • infernouk
    • By infernouk 27th Jul 17, 9:58 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    infernouk
    No sooner said than done - with thanks to the BMPA:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004299665-Olley-v-Marlborough-Court-Ltd

    Downloadable transcript there.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    thanks for all this, im going to give it one more going over on saturday before sending. Do you know where i can find the notes or something for Spurling v Bradshaw![1956] as i cant find anything to include in my exhibits around it.

    So i understand, i print my statement and all my exhibits and then post them to the court and too Gladstone? Can I email them as gladstone did to me? as its so much printing to print the whole tenancy agreement twice as well as everything else!

    Do i include my preliminary matters regarding their witness attendance also? or wait until the day? also where do include my claim for expenses as ive completed that, i assume perhaps both of these two i just present on the dat? or does it all go together to both.
    Last edited by infernouk; 27-07-2017 at 10:00 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,241Posts Today

7,049Users online

Martin's Twitter