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
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 5th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Vielwerth
    *LOST* - Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage
    • #1
    • 5th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    *LOST* - Court claim issued - No Marked Bays, Confusing Signage 5th Jun 17 at 5:55 PM
    Hello there, first post, first PCN at risk of going to court.

    EDIT - Docs can be found here:

    drive.google.com/open?id=0BwXipWyUznKcOFJVZUJLUnJHYTQ
    (not allowed to post links so please copy and paste this into your browser.)

    Photo links can be found below.

    I've just had papers served by Northampton for some parking what I did back on 6th November 2016. This was in Cardiff and the company managing the site is the one directed by a failed sex toy company director.

    I parked in a "car park" (a muddy, gravel filled field) to visit a friend in the block of flats opposite. I admit to clearly seeing the signage, but I thought would nip in and ask my friend (the tenant) if it was okay to park there (if the car park was actively being managed, tickets being issued, etc). If not, I would move the car.

    Another friend who had arrived before me stated confidently that because there were no bays, and the T&Cs referred to being parked in a bay, that it was "alright". I took him at his word and left the car parked there.

    When I went to check the car a few hours later, a PCN was stuck to the windscreen. I immediately checked all the signs and noted that there were 5 signs in total. They were not all the same, however. There were two groups of signs, differentiated by the exact wording of the T&Cs (a set of 3 and a set of 2). The set of 3 looked more worn and generally a little older than the set of 2. But from a distance, an average person would not be able to tell that these signs say different things, and would likely assume that they were all the same.

    I'll refer to the set of 3 as the "old signs" and the set of 2 as "new".
    Here is an "old" sign.


    imgur.com/a/wiBKV

    And here is a "new" sign (the one I suspect that Link actually intended to apply to the site) -

    imgur.com/a/6T3HQ


    Here is a ground view of the site. Not an "allocated bay" anywhere to be seen.

    imgur.com/a/YyyaW

    Here are some preliminary notes I've typed up for my defence which I'll need to send off before the 13th June 2017:
    ----------------------------
    I submit that this claim by Link Parking be dismissed for the following reasons:
    Link Parking attempted to enforce a contract using signage that was faulty or contradictory.
    1. Two sets of terms and conditions, causing confusion.
    a. No indication of which particular T&Cs was intended to be in force.
    b. Signage of both sets of T&Cs look identical from a distance. I believe a reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that there are two T&Cs.
    2. One set of terms and conditions offering a pay and display provision for parking, when there was no such provision (machines, tickets, etc).
    a. No details on signage on how to acquire valid pay and display documentation
    3. The other set of terms and conditions insisting on two conditions being fulfilled to prevent a PCN being issued, namely "displaying a permit" AND being "parked in an allocated bay". At the time of writing, there are no "allocated bays"; the parking area is waste ground composed of gravel and mud.
    Regardless of which T&Cs are intended by the claimant to apply to the site, it is impossible for a driver of a vehicle parked at the site to comply with the listed terms and conditions and the contract is therefore unenforceable (should I put this line in???)
    Other possible points -
    · Parking company claiming on behalf of Horizon Properties? (Horizon do not appear on the signage).
    · Gladstone Solicitors failed to respond to my time limit of 14 days. (they were 3 weeks late).
    · Who is the landowner?
    · Letters feel like they've been written by a computer, and do not specifically refer to the points I made.
    · Email from horizon advising of deadline for assistance with parking tickets was sent after the deadline mentioned in email had actually passed. Clearly there was intended to be some kind of "grace period". I was ticketed before this time was up.
    · Can T&Cs be enforced when one part (allocated bays) doesn't exist? The signage specifically says "permit AND parked in a bay"... Can a contract be enforced with just one half of the conditions (on the signage) in place to be complied with?
    · Tenant and I discovered discarded signage in a rubbish pile about halfway down the alleyway. They were two "new" signs. Was it Horizon Staff who put the signs up?

    ---------------
    Here is my actual defence that I have typed up and ready to go in MCOL.


    The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly
    admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for
    the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. The claimant insists that an enforceable contract has been
    created due to signage at the site in question. The signage is
    confusing and contradictory, and therefore an enforceable contract
    does not and has not existed. The problems with this signage are
    detailed below.

    1.a - At the site in question, there are two sets of terms and
    conditions.

    1.a.1 - One set of signage (referred to henceforth as the new
    signs) insists on two conditions being fulfilled in order to forgo
    the charge of £100 for parking. Namely that a permit must be
    displayed, AND the vehicle must be parked in an allocated bay.

    I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
    clearly newer and cleaner, suggesting it has been put up well
    after the other set described below.

    1.a.2 - The other set of T&C signage (referred to henceforth as
    the old signs) insists on 1 of three conditions being fulfilled to
    avoid the same charge described in 1.a.1. The one condition of
    interest is:

    Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid
    pay-and-display ticket and parked fully within the confines of a
    marked bay.

    I am in possession of photographic evidence. The signage is
    clearly older and dirtier, suggesting it has been put up well
    before the new set described above.

    1.b. - There is no indication whatsoever which set of terms and
    conditions is supposed to take precedence.

    1.c. - Signage of both sets of T&C signage look identical from a
    distance, even in clear weather and good lighting. I believe a
    reasonable person would not, on initial inspection, realise that
    there are two T&Cs.

    2. The new T&C signage refers to the need for both conditions to
    be fulfilled to avoid a charge. This is impossible, as there are
    no marked allocated bays onsite. I am in possession of
    photographic evidence which shows that the parking area is
    comprised of mud and gravel, and is, as of 20/05/2017, undeveloped
    waste ground, with no paint or other markings to define where
    these alluded to bays are.

    3. The old T&C signage, specifically the section listed in 1.a.2,
    states the ability to pay and display a ticket. Thus inferring the
    existence of such a provision (i.e. ticket machines, payment
    devices, etc). There is no such provision of this and I am in
    possession of photographic evidence of this.

    3.a - There are no visible details on how or where to obtain a
    valid pay and display ticket.

    3.b - The same argument from 2. also applies, in that there are no
    bays onsite for any vehicle to park in (the requirement for which
    is stipulated in 1.a.2)

    I would also like to point out that the Claimant's solicitors,
    Gladstone Solicitors, have failed to abide by Practice Direction
    for Pre-Action Conduct (paras 13-16), by failing to respond to my
    letter sent in response to their Letter Before Claim within the
    deadline stipulated in my letter (14 days), taking just over 4
    weeks to arrive.

    With the above, I feel it is clear that the signage the Claimant
    attempted to use to enforce a contract is confusing and
    contradictory, and therefore enforces nothing. It is clear that
    the Claimant has failed in their responsibility to the public and
    the landowner to provide clear signage if they wish to impose such
    terms and conditions on members of the public. As such, I am not
    liable for any sum or amount claimed by the Claimant. I therefore
    request the court to strike out the claim as having no basis or
    likelihood of success.
    ---------------
    I hope you'll be able to give some advice. I've never been to court before, and they're asking for approx. £263 (160 for the fine, 50 for the solicitor's fees, and the remainder for the court costs).
    If you require any other documentation (like my appeal letter to Link and letter to Gladstones) please do not hesitate to request this. (I did not appeal to IAS after reading online how they are considered a kangaroo court and that a win for the parking company can strengthen the parking company's position.)

    I can also make a rough site map if anyone wants.
    Last edited by Vielwerth; 04-10-2017 at 1:06 PM.
Page 2
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Sep 17, 11:14 PM
    • 4,399 Posts
    • 2,719 Thanks
    KeithP
    7. I went over to inspect this sign. I was then further confused, as it was evident that this time was different from the first one that I had studied. This older sign stated clearly that one would be allowed to park here, if one purchased a pay and display ticket. (See Exhibit 5) shot of old sign
    Originally posted by Vielwerth
    ...evident that this time was different...

    should be ...evident that this sign was different...
    .
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 11th Sep 17, 4:59 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    Here is a second draft, all suggestions inputted. Point 15 now has some snark in it. Please advise if it should be removed.




    IN THE xxx Civil And Family Justice Centre





    CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXX




    Link Parking Limited


    (CLAIMANT)


    -AND-




    Mr xxx


    (DEFENDANT)


    ____________________________________





    WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxx


    ____________________________________





    I am the defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the claimant may do, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

    In this witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


    Exhibited to this Witness Statement are following documents upon which I wish to rely:


    (several bits of evidence here, including the beavis sign).

    1. On the material day in question, 6 November 2016, it is admitted that I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle when the parking charge was issued by Link Parking.

    2. The day the parking charge was issued was also the very first time I had ever entered/used this car park. Upon entering the car park, I noticed signage placed at various points around the car park, which I believed to be referring to purported terms and conditions for parking. It is not claimed, nor has it ever been claimed, that I did not see the signage.

    3. After exiting my vehicle, I walked across the car park to inspect one of these signs. I was immediately confused, as the signage explicitly states that in order to park here, one must be in possession of a permit, and be parked within the confines of a marked bay. (See Exhibit 1)

    4. I was confused because the "marked bays" alluded to by this sign was nowhere to be seen. At the time the parking charge was issued, the so-called car park was an undeveloped piece of waste ground, mostly comprised of gravel. (See Exhibit 2)

    5. As recently as 20 May 2017, this so-called car park is still undeveloped, with no marked bays in sight.

    6. Upon looking around the car park for the existence of these purported marked bays, I spotted another sign, mounted on the side of a decrepit-looking building. This sign looked visibly older (scuffed, dusty, dirty, etc) which piqued my interest. (See Exhibit 4)

    7. I went over to inspect this sign. I was then further confused, as it was evident that this sign was different from the first one that I had studied. This older sign stated clearly that one would be allowed to park here, if one purchased a pay and display ticket. (See Exhibit 5)

    8. Upon learning of this information, I looked around the car park for the implied pay and display infrastructure, such as a ticket machine. Yet no such provision for pay-and-display existed. (See Exhibits 2, 3 and 6)

    9. This deepened my confusion. It was evident that there were two sets of terms and conditions at this car park. One insisted on parking within the confines of marked bays that didn't exist, while the other implied the availability of a pay and display system, which also didn't exist. There was also no indication as to which set of terms and conditions was to take precedence.

    10. At this point I decided to enquire with my friend, Mr John X, who I was visiting on the day in question. Mr X was, at the time, a tenant of one of the flats to which this car park appeared to serve.

    11. Upon entering Mr X's flat I made enquiries regarding the management of the top part to which he was unable to answer. However a mutual friend, Mr Jerry Y, who was also visiting on that day, confidently stated that the nonexistence of the bay markings rendered the terms and conditions and unenforceable. (See witness statements for Mr X and Mr Y)

    12. I took this statement to be true in good faith, backed up by my own knowledge/confusion of the signage in the car park. Hence I left my car parked. Unfortunately, this resulted in a parking charge being issued by Link parking.

    13. As per the procedure laid out by the parking charge document (which was stuck to my car windscreen) I appealed to Link Parking via an email on 19 November 2016. (See Exhibit 7)

    14. I received a response to my appeal from Link Parking on 27 November 2016. My appeal was rejected, however I firmly believe that the particulars of my appeal were not considered or studied at all by Link Parking and the rejection email I received was a standard form rejection, simply stating that my vehicle was not showing a valid permit. (See Exhibit 8)



    15. I took no further action at this point as I genuinely believe the ambiguity of two different sets of signage and lack of marked bays at the site meant that there was no enforceable contract. I also believed that the so-called “operator” of this car park, Link Parking, were also aware of this deficiency in their signage, and would not pursue a charge on such a baseless claim. Nevertheless, I received a notice to keeper from Link Parking on 30 December 2016, And then a letter before claim from LPs solicitors, Gladstones solicitors, on 1 March 2017. (See Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10).

    16. The letter before claim offered me an opportunity to correspond with Gladstones Solicitors, to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to give an account of the circumstances which led to a parking charge being issued. I of course took this opportunity to explain why I owed nothing and responded to the letter before claim with in the stipulated time limit of 14 days. (See Exhibit 11)

    17. My response requested that Gladstone solicitors reply within 14 days. Gladstones Solicitors response took just over 4 weeks to arrive (arriving on 13 April 2017), breaching Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol requirements. The letter is a rejection of my claim that I owe nothing. (See Exhibit 12)

    18. Again, I believe that this letter (see Exhibit 12) is a standard form response by Gladstone solicitors, as there is no reference to any of the particulars I stipulated in my letter to them. For example, the letter from Gladstones states that their "client will reject any arguments that I did not see the sign". A rather redundant statement as my letter to them clearly states that I did see the sign(age) and that I would be not denying that any way (see Exhibit 11). I am therefore led to believe that my letter was not considered or studied in the slightest, and was in the claimant’s/Gladstones Solicitors eyes, merely worthy of an automatic response.

    19. As a result, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, issued on 11 May 2017. The particulars of claim stated within are extremely lacking in detail, merely stating that I "incurred the parking charges on 06/11/2016 for breaching the terms of parking...". As I obviously required more detail in order to file a suitable defence I sent a part 18 request to Link Parking for further and better particulars on 24 May 2017. I also requested any documentation and relevant contracts between Link Parking and the landowner in order to establish LPs legitimacy issue parking charges. (See Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14)



    20. This request was not responded to, and at the time of writing I have received no correspondence at all from Link Parking regarding this request.

    21. I believe that the circumstances and associated evidence shows that it is impossible for any user of the car park in question to meet the terms and conditions stipulated by either set of signage, namely it is impossible to park in a marked bay when such a marked bay does not exist. Therefore, any contract purported to exist by Link Parking does not.

    22. I also believe that Link Parking have shown themselves to be less than responsible for putting up signage outright implying the existence of a pay and display provision, and yet failing to provide such a provision (E.g. a ticket machine), or alternatively changing the sign to one that would better match the circumstances of the car park. A sign which Link Parking clearly have available seeing as that same signage is also installed at the car park in question.

    23. I believe the lacklustre responses (see points #14 and #18) I received to my appeal/correspondence to the claimant and their representatives, and the vague Particulars of Claim, shows that this entire affair is by design merely to scare me into paying an inflated parking charge.



    24. As a result of this entire affair, I have felt extremely anxious and rather upset that I should be pursued in this way by an organisation that doesn't even appear to read any correspondence I send. I have been given the impression that this affair will, regardless of any action I take, be concluded at a court hearing; a concept which gives me no small amount of stress, due to me never having set foot in a courthouse before and having no experience or knowledge of proper procedure. Or indeed, any legal matters whatsoever.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.




    --------------
    Could I fit in Bargepole's frustration doctrine somewhere here?
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 13th Sep 17, 3:54 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    This needs to go in tomorrow (will be handing in a copy to the court, and emailing a copy to gladstones). Just to confirm, the WS isn't where I cite cases, no? I can see other WS's and they appear to be citing cases.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 8:25 PM
    • 51,427 Posts
    • 65,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Technically the WS is not where you cite cases/legal arguments, it's just the facts and all your evidence and exhibits you intend to rely upon (which does include the case transcripts mentioned in your defence).

    But it's only small claims and you are not expected to be an expert, just an honest witness Defendant.
    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.

    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 13th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    Take a prepared and proofed list of your expenses to court including loss of earnings.
    Originally posted by Marktheshark
    Can I take it on the day? I read somewhere I have to serve it (to both sides or just the court?) 24 hours in advance.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Sep 17, 12:17 AM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 2,317 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Ideally you would file and serve it with your WS or SA but you can take it on the day.

    As CM says - this is small claims.
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 14th Sep 17, 11:44 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    I'm having real trouble finding the transcripts for cases listed in my defence.

    Link Parking Ltd -v- Cowles - Chippenham County Court 24-11- 2015 ref B5GF95H3

    ParkingEye v Beavis - specifically the bit relating to minimum standard for signage

    The case number for this one:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/pcmuk-youve-been-gladstoned.html?m=1

    And theone involving Judge Anson at Preston.

    Do you think providing a copy of CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3 - 7.5 as an exhibit would be enough?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Sep 17, 12:30 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You shoudlnt need to, the court have access to law. You dont need to exhibit it, to my knowledge.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Sep 17, 2:29 PM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 2,317 Thanks
    Lamilad
    As above you, technically, don't need to adduce anything that is law but, in my experience, judges are generally pleased when you do (easier for them).

    Bear in mind that, other cases are not necessarily "case law" unless the were heard in the higher courts, but they can still be persuasive (depending on the judge).

    Are you sure transcripts exist for the cases you've listed? Beavis certainly does but you don't need to adduce all of it - just the relevant bits.
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 14th Sep 17, 3:43 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    No, I'm not sure. The one I'm really after is Link Parking v Cowles but the only info on that is a ParkingPrankster blog post. After searching for such a long time I don't think a transcript exists, which is a shame because it's the only case that comes somewhat close the circumstances in my case.

    You would have thought that cases with "no marked bays" would have come up before, bit I've had no luck finding any yet.

    Or maybe (hopefully) this is such a simple case that it can argued simply on the law, doctrine, etc and not require any "case law". I mean, I thought contracts were supposed to be these exquisitely crafted documents (or signs!) that were clear and unambiguous, not nonsense signs where half the terms and conditions are impossible to fulfill (because, again, no marked bays, no pay and display provision, two sets of signs, etc).

    For Beavis, I'm after the bit that, I think, marks the "Beavis" sign as the minimum acceptable standard (which the signs in my case definitely don't meet). I'll have to read the transcript again cos I didn't find it.
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 18th Sep 17, 12:38 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    Called the court, Link's WS has been received. I haven't got anything yet but the order was for the WSs to be sent by the 14th of September, so it'll probably turn up soon.


    Can I get some help with drafting a skeleton argument? The only legal doctrine I'm aware of, that I could possibly rely on, is consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds), but I'll probably need more to convince the judge.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Sep 17, 2:36 PM
    • 51,427 Posts
    • 65,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Skeleton arguments shown 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.

    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 18th Sep 17, 3:37 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Skeleton arguments shown there.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    I have, but I can't see any strictly legal arguments that relate to my case. Would consensus ad idem be enough to get the judge onside?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Sep 17, 8:21 PM
    • 51,427 Posts
    • 65,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Have a look at this one from today, and LoadsofChildren123's suggestions about how to structure it:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5696361&page=3

    You shouldn't be looking for new legal arguments now - your skeleton merely sets out your defence and legal arguments already made in it.

    Remind us what your defence said, exactly?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-09-2017 at 9:11 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.

    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 19th Sep 17, 12:16 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    Remind us what your defence said, exactly?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I'll do a write up tonight. Just got my hands on link's witness statement and there are a couple of odd points. Making an annotated version of it now, and will upload in an hour or so.

    I've boobed though. Their evidence of the signage is non existent. They've provided a copy of the sign with no location number or establishing shot. (An error I think Link have made before.) However MY exhibits have plenty of shots (and establishment shots) proving that those signs were on site. Can they use my evidence to make up for their mistake?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 19th Sep 17, 12:34 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Wel they can of course use your evidence, however you should ask why they havent proven their case first

    Does their make statements that cannot possibly be known, e..g the identity of the driver, or make mistakes or inconsistencies? Usually the "witness" is no such thing, so if you can discredit their WS you cna get it thrown out - meaning they have no evidence to prove their case.
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 19th Sep 17, 1:38 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    I've added an annotated copy of Link's WS to my Google Drive. You can access it here :


    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwXipWyUznKcOFJVZUJLUnJHYTQ


    Please let me know what you think. Marty McFly claims there is only ONE sign on the entire site and doesn't say anything about the lack of bays or the pay and display conundrum.


    Also their site plan is a joke, a scan of Google Maps with some mysterious "X"s on it.
    • Vielwerth
    • By Vielwerth 19th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Vielwerth
    Did a bit of digging and the landowner (a person) isn't the same entity as the company Link's contract was signed with.


    This person is however the senior exec of that company. Can authority over land be transferred to a company one is in charge of?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Sep 17, 11:09 PM
    • 51,427 Posts
    • 65,029 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This person is however the senior exec of that company.
    You know that...but do they? Don't hand them more evidence/hints!

    Hopefully some of us will find a moment to look at your annotated version of their WS, shortly.
    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.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 20th Sep 17, 12:42 AM
    • 638 Posts
    • 1,206 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Lots to go on here. I will resist comment on his {ahem} intriguingly eclectic line of current and former business interests.

    So to the statement: no he doesn't need to attach the contract. That's not the point Martin, you disingenuous fella, it's your duty to set out the material terms of the contract and how it was formed and your particulars do not.

    We love Buckingham Palace, I'm so glad Martin does too. But since Link's right to sue on the unpaid charge appears to derive wholly from the terms of the contract not on interpretation of legal concepts, it better be enforceable or their house of cards will come tumbling down.

    Technical points

    1. Horizon Properties (student letting agent) appears to be unincorporated. If that is the case, the contract MUST be in the name of the sole trader, trading as Horizon. There should also be a business address for them.

    It's ridiculously uncertain. Is that Horizon Properties, Horizon Estate Agents, Horizon Properties Ltd (all are different). And if you don't specify, who are the controlling minds of that business at the material time and who signed it?

    The o/p homework on the landowner appears to suggest that the property owner and business owner may be one and the same. If that is correct, and without misleading the court (it is paramount not to do that), where possible I would not introduce as evidence any material as to who the owner is. Uncertainty is your friend.

    2. The address appears to be a property address not that of the letting agent (who are based on Senghennedd Rd. It's been a long time since I was in Cardiff, but effectively the contract names the parking site in Cathays only AFAIK.

    The execution clauses on that document are terrible with no alignment. However in the context of a small company, unless Martin as sole director signed it, there is an argument it may not have been validly executed anyway.

    Finally, whilst this is all good stuff, the court could elect just to assume there is a valid contract because there were signs up. The powers of the court are wide and varied.
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

3,585Posts Today

7,581Users online

Martin's Twitter