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
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 27th Apr 17, 2:25 PM
    • 291Posts
    • 302Thanks
    claxtome
    1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued
    • #1
    • 27th Apr 17, 2:25 PM
    1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued 27th Apr 17 at 2:25 PM
    Backgound
    1 big car park 2 landowners - local council and private (ESxxx) which is AOS member and should follow IPC guidelines)
    2 entrances from highway to ES part and 1 entrance from highway to Council part.
    Bought valid parking ticket in council part; drove to private part and parked.
    Didn't realise the car park covered 2 areas of land ownership.
    No signage at change of land ownership against IPC CoP guidelines
    No boundary fence on the day
    Came back later in day with 'Notice to Driver' parking charge with words "council tickets not valid in this part of car park"
    Have produced a DVD showing how it is possible to drive round the car park without going back onto a highway

    NTK came back 39 days later. I ignored and didn't appeal

    Further letters and sent my response appeal
    Received reply stating too late to appeal and continuing with chasing letters.

    Received LBC from Gladstones which I replied

    Received MCOL court claim letter from Northampton early April


    Defence, WS and Skeleton have now been submitted and court date is very soon

    My defence, WS, evidence etc. are in this folder->
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r1mszyesx5cxpoa/AACVSwFWvw_nXMN0soZAO964a?dl=0

    Claimant's WS and evidence are in this fo!der->
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/im119eaq9etiyo8/AADm3lCyIuUpeg7itMoGtrq_a?dl=0

    Thanks for reading.
    Last edited by claxtome; 11-10-2017 at 2:11 PM.
Page 5
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 13th Aug 17, 7:12 AM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    Been looking at Claimant's evidence.
    In particular the contract.
    Link to Claimant's evidence is in this Dropbox folder>
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/im119eaq9etiyo8/AADm3lCyIuUpeg7itMoGtrq_a?dl=0

    As Coupon-mad mentioned the initial run of contract is 12 months.
    It was signed in Feb 2015 and would therefore appear out of date on the day in question.
    Point 8 states:
    The agreement is for an initial period of 1 year and thereafter is subject to termination in accordance with the terms and conditions overleaf....
    (Not been sent terms and conditions page)

    What happens after 12 months is it terminated automatically OR is it like a tenant lease and it can continue?
    Please can people who know about Parking contracts comment.

    Would a SAR to landowner or PPC be useful to see the terms and conditions OR contract extension?
    Last edited by claxtome; 13-08-2017 at 7:38 AM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Aug 17, 8:39 AM
    • 1,695 Posts
    • 3,091 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Is that the only pic in the bundle? Doesn't exactly convey the idea of clear and unambiguous signs. See LOC's arguments in #3.

    Did they also put in a facsimile of the the sign they claim was there on the day?

    And have you checked the name and directors of the people they say signed the contract.

    Gladstones haven't a clue if ESP are lying or not - plausible deniability as seen in ParkingEye v Somerfield. So you have to check all ESP have included as the WS is just a template which "interprets" the evidence.

    Too late for a SAR now but not too late to check locations of signs and ownership/occupation. Your local council for example can confirm who pays the non-domestic rates (occupation), whether the signs had planning permission and importantly whether the site had permission to be run as a car park and to whom that permission was given.

    Looks like ESP are going to be Gladstoned unless there is something else in there.

    You might want to get a huge list of costs and send it to ESP saying they can either drop the case or you will be asking for costs.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 13-08-2017 at 8:41 AM.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Aug 17, 8:51 AM
    • 653 Posts
    • 1,231 Thanks
    Johnersh
    It'll almost certainly run month to month, terminable on notice. You are correct, though: we don't KNOW that from what is provided. Similarly, the contract refers to terms and schedules overleaf that may be relevant.

    This contract is better than many. By permitting ES to become creditor that also permits them to sue you directly - note that the contract appears limited to pofa though, which may limit their total charges to be claimed.

    It is the status of the signatories that are unclear. If the landowner is a Ltd company rather than a private individual I suspect that there will be inadequate information for this to have formed a binding contract.

    Obviously the best argument remains in connection with the land delineation and meaningless photo. If you get a map of the site and colour in the entire edge, you can send it in so that you can do a search of the index map (SIM) at the land registry. That in turn will tell you the boundaries and title numbers. For a small additional fee you can get the owner info. Best of all, the land registry are really helpful by phone and the searches quite quick. The total costs should be less than £15 and will be recoverable as a defence cost if you win.

    Note that ES Parking contracted that they would take 4 photos as a minimum. The court should be invited to infer that the failure to include more photos is because it will show (a) that you did display a ticket and (b) that there was other signage that you did comply with.
    Last edited by Johnersh; 13-08-2017 at 8:56 AM. Reason: add comment re: photos
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Aug 17, 8:51 AM
    • 15,506 Posts
    • 24,221 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Looks like ESP are going to be Gladstoned
    They've already been 'Trevored'.

    Owd Trev Whitehouse seems to provide the 'brainpower' for ESPEL. Says much about the rest of them!
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 13-08-2017 at 10:35 AM.
    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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 13th Aug 17, 9:30 AM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    Thanks for your prompt responses.

    I will quote what people have asked/mentioned with answers/comments:

    Is that the only pic in the bundle? Doesn't exactly convey the idea of clear and unambiguous signs. See LOC's arguments in #3.
    There were 4 other pictures but only of the car. No more signage shots.

    Did they also put in a facsimile of the the sign they claim was there on the day?
    I assume you mean a specimen sign. Yes they did. I have this in my evidence (link in header post) but probably best to include in their evidence doc as well though - will do this today.

    Too late for a SAR now but not too late to check locations of signs and ownership/occupation. Your local council for example can confirm who pays the non-domestic rates (occupation), whether the signs had planning permission and importantly whether the site had permission to be run as a car park and to whom that permission was given.
    I agree a check of signage against diagram they sent is a good idea - will do soon.
    I know the landowner and on the day they had a contract for signage (though has lapsed this year) and have permission to use as a car park. (Council helped with this).

    You might want to get a huge list of costs and send it to ESP saying they can either drop the case or you will be asking for costs.
    I think that is a good idea.

    It is the status of the signatories that are unclear. If the landowner is a Ltd company rather than a private individual I suspect that there will be inadequate information for this to have formed a binding contract.
    The landowner is Iliad, a big property development company, and is a Ltd company. Interested to know what other people think if contract has inadequate information to have formed a binding contract.

    Obviously the best argument remains in connection with the land delineation. If you get a map of the site and colour in the entire edge, you can send it in so that you can do a search of the index map (SIM) at the land registry. That in turn will tell you the boundaries and title numbers. For a small additional fee you can get the owner info. Best of all, the land registry are really helpful by phone and the searches quite quick. The total costs should be less than £15 and will be recoverable as a defence cost if you win.
    The council have helped identified planing permission rights. Which led me to find landowner. Think your suggestion is still good though as means of a backup. Thank you.
    Last edited by claxtome; 14-08-2017 at 5:42 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Aug 17, 4:30 PM
    • 51,507 Posts
    • 65,123 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Would a SAR to landowner or PPC be useful to see the terms and conditions OR contract extension?
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Just to add to all the good advice already given, beware of helping them paper over the cracks.

    If evidence gaps are there, note them and exploit them at the hearing, don't look to join the dots for the Claimant.
    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.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 13th Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    Update (Remember covering post has links to Dropbox where evidence can be viewed)

    1) I have checked the signs on site against the signs shown in the diagram in the Claimant's evidence and is near enough correct. (Remember their diagram is wrong as it also shows the council owned land as well as the area managed by the PPC)

    2) The FOI Request to council produced some interesting info ->
    i) The council owned area of land in 2011 allowed private parking companies to manage the parking there. Sometime between then and 3 weeks before date in question ESPEL took over parking management of this area and rest of car park.

    ii) 3 weeks before day in question the council took back control of parking management of their land.

    iii) The boundary fence was supposedly erected soon after but council did not say a specific date. I know it wasn't complete before the day in question. I was surprised the council can't tell me when it was finished though :-(

    iv) Council don't know why the rubble was put there or why near the boundary stopping people from travelling between 2 areas.

    The last 2 points iii) and iv) are frustrating answers to my FOI request.
    Any suggestions for follow up questions/plan of attack for council as felt like appealing the answer?
    (Surely they must know when the fence was erected)

    Starting to prepare my skeleton argument and will post a draft in the next week or so...
    Last edited by claxtome; 13-09-2017 at 9:57 PM.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Sep 17, 8:02 AM
    • 653 Posts
    • 1,231 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Rubbish (III) and (IV) are the best possible answers you could have.

    A// It demonstrates that the council were aware of the need to separate their land, but on balance (taking into account your w/s) had not done so at the material time.

    B// it demonstrates (a rebuttable presumption that you should advance) that the PPC were aware of a parking issue where cars were straying from one parking zone into another and therefore erected a physical barrier to prevent this.

    If A and/or B are recognised by the court it follows that this is tacit recognition of the misleading nature of the signage which showed conflicting terms.

    It will be for the PPC to prove that you saw their sign and that it was sufficiently clear to form a contract. If as seems likely they will also fail to address these points, I think you'll be able to show that they have failed on balance to prove their case.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Sep 17, 10:01 AM
    • 846 Posts
    • 960 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    As above. As ever excellent analysis by Jonersh.
    Confusion benefits you here, not the claimant!
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Sep 17, 6:36 AM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    Still preparing my skeleton argument.

    Wanted to know what I can claim in court.
    From what I have read from the sticky the following is allowed->

    (These first 2 if the Claimant or Solicitor behave inappropriately or discontinue.)
    1) Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour,
    6 hours. Total £114

    2) Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage
    Estimate £25.

    These are allowed if I win->
    1) One day off work to attend hearing @£23 per hour X 5 hours
    £115

    2) Mileage driven to attend court and return
    18.8 miles @ £0.45 per mile
    £8.46

    3) Car parking on day of hearing
    £5

    4) Land registry search fee
    £4

    Total costs claimed £132.46 (without the extra costs).


    Is there anything I have not included or wrong with this?

    Note: I am intending to send a cost schedule to Claimant saying I will ask for these costs unless they discontinue.
    Last edited by claxtome; 23-09-2017 at 7:55 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Sep 17, 8:36 AM
    • 15,506 Posts
    • 24,221 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Time off work, loss of earnings is capped @ £95. You'll need to take proof of earnings levels to show the Judge.

    There's no guarantee that you will receive anything, even if you win, some judges in the past have dismissed any costs (very surprising, but all part of the Judge Bingo game!).

    Some take a bit of a knife to the cost schedule and do a bit of 'pruning' - with the research and preparation time @ £19ph often taking the brunt.
    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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Sep 17, 8:54 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    thank you Umkomaas for the info.

    Costs I will go for (first 2 if they discontinue late or feel I can potentially try due to bad behaviour) are:
    1) Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour,
    6 hours. Total £114

    2) Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage
    Estimate £25.

    3) One day off work to attend hearing @£23 per hour X 4 hours
    £92

    2) Mileage driven to attend court and return
    18.8 miles @ £0.45 per mile
    £8.46

    3) Car parking on day of hearing
    £5

    4) Land registry search fee
    £4

    Total costs claimed £109.46 (without the extra costs).
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Sep 17, 9:04 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    The DVLA SAR I sent came back today. The PPC got my keeper details 38 days after fateful day.

    Funny enough the Land Registry Index Map search (SIM) of the car park also came back today but unfortunately I will need to resend a second map on the OS Map blank they provided. They couldn't search using my google map.

    I should still hopefully get this back in time as only took a week.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Sep 17, 9:20 PM
    • 15,506 Posts
    • 24,221 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It's clear from recent posts by both Lamilad and bargepole that if the PPC/solicitors discontinue, you won't be able to claim any costs.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73165881#post73165881
    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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 23rd Sep 17, 10:36 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    I am in 2 minds now should I send a costs schedule to the PPC and risk them discontinuing before court day
    OR
    Just wait until day and keep the ace up my sleeve (get some compensation - even if not much)

    On reflection I think I will send the costs schedule now to PPC - much prefer the knowledge of a discontinuance than a loss at court particularly as the cost I can claim would just cover the appearance costs anyway.

    Anyone else have an opinion?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Sep 17, 11:20 PM
    • 51,507 Posts
    • 65,123 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A costs schedule should be filed in advance; nothing should be sprung on either party on the day.
    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.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 26th Sep 17, 9:54 AM
    • 1,593 Posts
    • 2,701 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    A costs schedule must be served 24 hours in advance, minimum. So sayeth the Rules.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 29th Sep 17, 8:14 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    In light of Kezza15 winning today under thread
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5642721&page=3#topofpage

    Which is the same car park and same problem as mine how can we use this to my advantage.

    She has Volunteered to do a witness statement saying no fence there for instance but is this too late when my hearing is a week on Thursday?
    Quote her case in my skeleton argument?
    Anything else?
    Last edited by claxtome; 29-09-2017 at 9:08 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 17, 11:12 PM
    • 51,507 Posts
    • 65,123 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    She has Volunteered to do a witness statement saying no fence there for instance but is this too late when my hearing is a week on Thursday?
    Quote her case in my skeleton argument?
    Try it all. It's small claims and anything goes. In small claims it's said to be 'DJ Lottery' and you need to tip the balance in your favour of you can (although I'd say it's already in your favour unless your Judge is a useless old idiot).

    What's the worst that can happen? Judge says it's inadmissable and you move on to the next point.
    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.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 30th Sep 17, 4:16 AM
    • 291 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    claxtome
    My draft drop hands offer what do people think->


    Without Prejudice, Save as to Costs
    To whom it may concern

    I am writing in regards to Claim Number XXXXXX, PCN Number XXXXXXXX which goes to court on Thursday XXXX October. For 5 days only from the date of this letter I am prepared to accept a 'drop hands' arrangement to settle the case and save court time in unnecessarily dealing with this. Please respond by Thursday 5th October 5PM after which I will be pursuing punitive costs at the hearing.

    Your court evidence is woeful and I have identified a number of very surprising issues that I look forward to drawing attention to the judge when cross-examining the witness. I believe these could prove very important.

    I am aware of your recent court appearance Claim number D4GF90W8 at St Helens Court yesterday, a very similar case in the same car park, which was dismissed by the Judge.

    I am confident in my arguments as detailed in Defence and Witness Statement and that the judge will rule in my favour. As detailed in my defence the Car park at XXXX St was not demarcated in any way, and no signs, to stop people travelling from the council part to your part which is against IPC CoP guidelines. The Judges in the Beavis case stated CoP guidelines must be followed in law. All of this will be explained to the judge. If you would like me to elaborate I will be happy to explain.

    The Claimant is invited to withdraw his claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 5 days from the date of this letter.

    The terms of the offer have value to the Claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action.

    If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.14 (2) (d) (e) (g) as per below
    .

    (2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

    (d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
    (e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
    (g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably


    If we are unable to resolve this via a 'drop hands' arrangement, I will be seeking a punitive cost order against the claimant. Already my costs amount to £97.46 (as per the attached schedule), but I will be seeking further costs in view of the claimant's evident unreasonableness in pursuing me.

    <defendant name>
    Last edited by claxtome; 30-09-2017 at 7:47 AM. Reason: Add title
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

4,128Posts Today

9,135Users online

Martin's Twitter