IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM (UKCPM, Gladstones)

Options
13567

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 132,044 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Options
    ''Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court offices copies of all documents (including any experts' report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.''

    I've never received a letter with any mention of Witness Statements.

    Oh good, you have time then, if the court date is more than a fortnight away. the Court letter doesn't call it a WS but that's what it means, and you are expected to file one with your evidence.
    I don't think my WS will differ much from the argument I put forward in my initial response, except attaching the Lease?
    And the transcripts of your case law, e.g. Jopson v Home Guard (a persuasive case heard on Appeal) and Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, and Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0.

    All transcripts for those cases are hosted in the Parking Prankster's case law page (Google it).

    And were they VERY late in filing their amended claim, did they meet the April date?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • CircusFrog
    CircusFrog Posts: 30 Forumite
    Options
    And were they VERY late in filing their amended claim, did they meet the April date?

    Well, their Statement of Truth is signed and dated 12th June. So I'm thinking, no?

    Thanks on the other stuff, I'll go and look at the links in the Newbie thread, include in the transcripts of the case law and put another re-write up here?

    Do I need to amend the Defense to address this from the Claimant?
    In view of the fact that the Defendant claims to be a resident, but hasn't received daily charges, it can be averred that they have displayed a permit on multiple occasions previously. In view of this, they accepted the charge
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 132,044 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Options
    Do I need to amend the Defence to address this from the Claimant?

    Yes, you need to address that in the WS (you are not amending the defence, you can't now). You can explain in the WS that permits were issued by xxxxxxx (hopefully the Managing agents, not the claimant?) with nothing stated about any 'parking charge', and that residents displayed them as a courtesy, not in the knowledge or acceptance of any onerous 'contract'.

    Like here (this one is a defence but much of what this OP states can be used in a WS):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72679759#post72679759
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • CircusFrog
    CircusFrog Posts: 30 Forumite
    Options
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Yes, you need to address that in the WS (you are not amending the defence, you can't now). You can explain in the WS that permits were issued by xxxxxxx (hopefully the Managing agents, not the claimant?) with nothing stated about any 'parking charge', and that residents displayed them as a courtesy, not in the knowledge or acceptance of any onerous 'contract'.

    Like here (this one is a defence but much of what this OP states can be used in a WS):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72679759#post72679759


    Unfortunately, no. I just found the letter that contained the permit, and it was from UKCPM: car-park-pass.jpg

    Screen_Shot_2017-06-27_at_23.58.42.png
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 132,044 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 9 July 2017 at 6:27PM
    Options
    It has some good things, well done for keeping that old letter!

    It states that the purpose of the scheme is to 'alleviate ongoing problems with unauthorised parking' and 'our aim is to provide a safer parking facility for all residents, whilst ensuring that residents can gain access and have exclusive right to their parking area'.

    And 'the parking areas are being protected by using a parking scheme'.

    Whilst it mentions a 'parking charge' it does not mention any sum, so no-one on the entire estate has agreed to pay £100, because it doesn't define any agreed sum (the only figure on that letter is a fiver).

    The second sheet 'instructions' is not written recognisably as a contract, by any stretch of the imagination, and merely tells a resident what to do, lulling you all into a false sense of security that your parking area is being somehow 'protected' for your convenience.

    In fact, it's more like a protection racket.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • CircusFrog
    CircusFrog Posts: 30 Forumite
    Options
    Right,

    First Draft of Witness Statement here: https://filetea.me/n3wyJCwOHGrQrqtZ5G5MLdhyg (pdf).

    Two thoughts:

    1) Do I need to prove residence? The Lease is actually with my husband.
    2) I still need to address their claim that having displayed the sign 'sometimes' constitutes a contract, I'll attach the letter above as evidence. Do I argue that the wording of the letter makes it clear that the intention was to protect residents (seems legally irrelevant) - or do I just emphasise no mention of a penalty fee in the letter?


    The letter also doesn't mention anything to the effect that displaying the permit constitutes accepting any terms.
  • CircusFrog
    CircusFrog Posts: 30 Forumite
    Options
    Re-reading the draft above, I wonder if the legal argument about the case law I've included should be made in a Skeleton Arguments intsead of this Witness Statement, which just needs to include them?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 132,044 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 9 July 2017 at 7:00PM
    Options
    Do I argue that the wording of the letter makes it clear that the intention was to protect residents (seems legally irrelevant) -

    I would say (as an armchair lawyer, unqualified) that it's not irrelevant at all. And there is more than just the 'protect' wording, there were three things I picked out that were misleading about the intentions of the regime. Include them all, and a copy of that letter filed at evidence.

    In PE v Beavis, they were allowed to charge £85 because the Supreme Court held that there was a 'legitimate interest' (bearing in mind the specific interests of the landowner in a retail park) in charging Mr Beavis more than just nominal damages. You can use the above drivel letter from the parking firm, to demonstrate there can be no 'legitimate interest' in penalising residents, fully distinguishing this case from the Beavis case. Clearly that was never meant to be the aim, at least not the way the regime was painted to residents and to the Managing Agent.
    CircusFrog wrote: »
    Re-reading the draft above, I wonder if the legal argument about the case law I've included should be made in a Skeleton Arguments intsead of this Witness Statement, which just needs to include them?
    Yes, if you have time then separate the legal stuff into a skeleton argument.

    The WS should be short and sweet - the facts of what happened, letters received etc.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    edited 9 July 2017 at 6:53PM
    Options
    No. 5 of the instructions threatens to immobilise the vehicle, do they mean clamping I wonder?

    Do they have permission from the head-lease holder to interfere thusly with the leasehold rights of the resident to quiet enjoyment of their property, but not showing a permit. It seems tyo mne that the whole scheme contravens quiet enjoyment rights.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • CircusFrog
    CircusFrog Posts: 30 Forumite
    Options
    Ok, here's a redraft, I've mentioned the letter they sent, specifically drawing on the fact that they said they're being introduced to deal with the problem of "unauthorised parking", which implies authorisation was granted before the parking scheme was in place.

    I've taken out all of the details of the case law, other than to say that the case law says lease trumps sign.

    I'm still at 21 points though, so wonder if I've drifted into legal arguments again?


    PDF Here:

    https://filetea.me/n3wLZ7iIaFHTKKuL9CL245H4w

    I need to have filed the witness statement by this Thursday, so need to post to court (and email to Gladstones) by Tuesday.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards