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
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    • 44Posts
    • 28Thanks
    wi3347
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form
    • #1
    • 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form 24th Aug 17 at 8:32 PM
    Hello everyone, posted on here before about a PCN I had in 2012 which ended up in court and had some really good advice so posting here again. The vehicle im registered keeper for got a PCN in November last year. Its reached the claim form stage. I have done the acknowledgement of service on MCOL and need to submit my defence. The details of the PCN are.
    Name of the Claimant ? Millennium door and event security ltd.
    claimants Solicitors: Gladstones solicitors Ltd

    Date of issue – 09 Aug 2017 .

    Particulars of claim –
    1. "The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge on 15/11/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on land at Metropole Chambers Swansea SA13RT.

    2.The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle

    3.and the claimant claims £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.35 pursuant to s69 of the country courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day."

    What is the value of the claim? total of £243.35

    the initial online defence im going to submit tomorrow (pending advice) is

    The whole claim is denied in its entirety for a number of reasons which will be expanded upon in my witness statement should this claim be allocated to the small claims track.

    1. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the aleged contravention.
    2. The claimant is required under schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act 2012, to adhere to a number of strict requirements set out within that act in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper and has failed to do so, therefore the defendant is not liable in this matter as he was not the driver and POFA 2012 has not been complied with.
    3. The wording of the signage at the location is confusing and contradictory so cannot be said to be a genuine offer to form a contract. The claimant states the claim is for "parking charges" yet at the location there is no tariff of charges to refer to nor any way offered to pay the prescribed fee if it was deemed to be a contract and that the offer was accepted.
    4.It is unclear from the Particulars or claim if the claimant seeks to claim from the driver or rely on the POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. It clearly states in POFA 2012 that the claimants cannot claim for more than is stated in the original notice to keeper, in this case £100.
    5. The claimant has made a number of unsubstantiated claims in the courts and are abusing the court process as a method of intimidation or coercion rather than for collecting monies they have proper entitlement to and the defendant invites the court to strike out the claim.

    any help / advice / recommendations is much appreciated!
Page 2
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 29th Aug 17, 6:30 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    defence scanned and sent. Will update when i receive a response.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Aug 17, 8:39 PM
    • 851 Posts
    • 971 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Have you read post two of newbie thread? Tells you the next steps, so you know,what you should receive and by when.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 30th Aug 17, 10:39 AM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think you should do the land registry search to see who owns it.
    The bar is definitely under common ownership to the Millennium company. That's common knowledge (but not really relevant, only to the extent that it indicates to me that it's quite likely they own the land - unless it's public highway?).

    The LR search only costs you £3. While you can say it's for them to prove, sometimes it's just easier to get the evidence yourself (especially as it only costs £3 in this case). It saves you running a bum argument about landowner authority, or it proves that they aren't the landowner and must produce such authority.

    Do a search on the council's online planning portal to see if they have advertisement/planning consent for their signage. If they don't, lodge a complaint and the council will look into it. It might not be your best point, but do it anyway and it costs nothing.

    Don't sit on your laurels here, learn from your past experience and arm yourself with all the facts you can get.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 30th Aug 17, 7:44 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Have you read post two of newbie thread? Tells you the next steps, so you know,what you should receive and by when.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I have yes! thank you
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 30th Aug 17, 7:49 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    I think you should do the land registry search to see who owns it.
    The bar is definitely under common ownership to the Millennium company. That's common knowledge (but not really relevant, only to the extent that it indicates to me that it's quite likely they own the land - unless it's public highway?).

    The LR search only costs you £3. While you can say it's for them to prove, sometimes it's just easier to get the evidence yourself (especially as it only costs £3 in this case). It saves you running a bum argument about landowner authority, or it proves that they aren't the landowner and must produce such authority.

    Do a search on the council's online planning portal to see if they have advertisement/planning consent for their signage. If they don't, lodge a complaint and the council will look into it. It might not be your best point, but do it anyway and it costs nothing.

    Don't sit on your laurels here, learn from your past experience and arm yourself with all the facts you can get.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Fancy a rum is around the corner and down the street, close but not next to this site. In that area you also have the other businnesses i mentioned and inbetween you have vue cinema, quick fit, a curry house etc so unclear. The street its on is a public highway though, its sort of an alley way that leads through onto wind street. There is council parking bays on the left and this millennium bit is on the right so i dont think so.

    That being said the advice here is always valued and appreciated to i will get hold of the LR people and the council in the coming days. My defence is submitted now so all this would be mentioned in my WS if it get allocated to a small claims track so we have a bit of time yet, but i will get on with what youve suggested.

    Thanks!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Sep 17, 9:47 AM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Phone Highways at Swansea council to check its status (ie if it's public highway). I think this is the alleyway that goes up behind No Sign Wine Bar?
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 5th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Phone Highways at Swansea council to check its status (ie if it's public highway). I think this is the alleyway that goes up behind No Sign Wine Bar?
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Yes that is the one! ive just applied for the LR title register of the metropole chambers, see if it comes back millennium are the owners of the land.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 5th Sep 17, 2:01 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    I think you should do the land registry search to see who owns it.
    The bar is definitely under common ownership to the Millennium company. That's common knowledge (but not really relevant, only to the extent that it indicates to me that it's quite likely they own the land - unless it's public highway?).

    The LR search only costs you £3. While you can say it's for them to prove, sometimes it's just easier to get the evidence yourself (especially as it only costs £3 in this case). It saves you running a bum argument about landowner authority, or it proves that they aren't the landowner and must produce such authority.

    Do a search on the council's online planning portal to see if they have advertisement/planning consent for their signage. If they don't, lodge a complaint and the council will look into it. It might not be your best point, but do it anyway and it costs nothing.

    Don't sit on your laurels here, learn from your past experience and arm yourself with all the facts you can get.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Also checked the councils planning portal, there is nothing on their for application of planning permission for signage so i will launch a complaint with them via the portal.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 5th Sep 17, 2:20 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Ladies and gents i think we may have a winner,

    The Land registry comes back to show the owners are - METROPOLE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Co. Regn. No.6674242) of Metropole Chambers, Salubrious Passage, Swansea SA1 3RT.
    And the lender is a Swedish company: Svenska Handelsbanken AB (publ)

    Now heres the good bit. I got the plans of the location from the LR as well and it shows that the area that Millennium have erected their signs are not within the boundary line! only the building it self is, not the outside area where they have put up signs on the outside of the building. As far as i can tell this is public land! so the owners of the building wouldn't of had the authority to give them "permission" to enforce parking, even if their is a contract between them.

    Thats my understanding of it, thoughts?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Sep 17, 5:52 PM
    • 851 Posts
    • 971 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Makes sense.
    Ask the council parking team. If they pave authorised millennium to charge parking notices on this land....that usually gets movement, they don't like people,encroaching their turf ��
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 6:46 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great!

    Salubrious Passage
    Oooo-errr!
    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 6th Sep 17, 12:04 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Salubrious Passage...... yes indeed, my friend once stepped over a couple there, in flagrante, at around midnight and paused to ask the young lady if she was aware of what she was doing (and was told in no uncertain terms that she was and where to go).
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Sep 17, 12:13 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Ladies and gents i think we may have a winner,

    The Land registry comes back to show the owners are - METROPOLE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Co. Regn. No.6674242) of Metropole Chambers, Salubrious Passage, Swansea SA1 3RT.
    And the lender is a Swedish company: Svenska Handelsbanken AB (publ)

    Now heres the good bit. I got the plans of the location from the LR as well and it shows that the area that Millennium have erected their signs are not within the boundary line! only the building it self is, not the outside area where they have put up signs on the outside of the building. As far as i can tell this is public land! so the owners of the building wouldn't of had the authority to give them "permission" to enforce parking, even if their is a contract between them.

    Thats my understanding of it, thoughts?
    Originally posted by wi3347

    Interesting. It seems to have nothing to do with Millennium.
    Phone Highways Dept at the council to see if it's public highway and if it isn't ask them what its status is. If it's public highway get this confirmed in writing, and confirm with the council that they haven't authorised Millennium to operate there.


    If it isn't public highway then it must be privately owned - you may have to do another LR search of the actual passageway to see who owns it if it isn't public highway. Another £3 but you can claim these costs back if you win.


    Millennium may of course have leased the passageway where the car parking is, from whoever does own it. So finding out ownership is only step one in the process.


    This is Millennium's case and they have to prove it. With their WS they will probably produce a copy of the landowner contract or the lease (they did in mine and others I know of) - but you should be pressurising them to produce it now because this is the sort of information they should have produced at the start. But if you can then throw doubt over who owns the land, they should have to satisfy the judge that they do have valid authority, and you will have muddied the waters.


    Judges are entitled to make findings of fact - if there is any uncertainty, some will side with Millennium and make a finding they did have authority, others will say they haven't proved it and will find they didn't - and that is what we all refer to as DJ Bingo
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 6th Sep 17, 4:48 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Salubrious Passage...... yes indeed, my friend once stepped over a couple there, in flagrante, at around midnight and paused to ask the young lady if she was aware of what she was doing (and was told in no uncertain terms that she was and where to go).
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Standard Salubrious Passage for you my friend!
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 6th Sep 17, 5:35 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Interesting. It seems to have nothing to do with Millennium.
    Phone Highways Dept at the council to see if it's public highway and if it isn't ask them what its status is. If it's public highway get this confirmed in writing, and confirm with the council that they haven't authorised Millennium to operate there.


    If it isn't public highway then it must be privately owned - you may have to do another LR search of the actual passageway to see who owns it if it isn't public highway. Another £3 but you can claim these costs back if you win.


    Millennium may of course have leased the passageway where the car parking is, from whoever does own it. So finding out ownership is only step one in the process.


    This is Millennium's case and they have to prove it. With their WS they will probably produce a copy of the landowner contract or the lease (they did in mine and others I know of) - but you should be pressurising them to produce it now because this is the sort of information they should have produced at the start. But if you can then throw doubt over who owns the land, they should have to satisfy the judge that they do have valid authority, and you will have muddied the waters.


    Judges are entitled to make findings of fact - if there is any uncertainty, some will side with Millennium and make a finding they did have authority, others will say they haven't proved it and will find they didn't - and that is what we all refer to as DJ Bingo
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Ive emailed the highways department, will update when they reply. If they say its a public high way it will be in writing via the email. If its not i will do another LR check.

    I received an email from the planning part of the council saying my enquiry has been assigned to an officer who will visit the site etc etc so will update when i hear back from there too!

    Absolutely agree on the judge bingo. As with my other thread, the judge said that a letter produced with no address on it from the land owners to excel was enough to prove they have authority to enforce parking. The letter could of applied to anywhere in the known universe. I also think I could of produced a NASA recording of me walking on the moon the day the PCN was issued and id have still lost!
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 6th Sep 17, 5:46 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    I've also been thinking,
    The notice to keeper gives the address at "metropole chambers, salubrious passage, Swansea"

    The Land registry map clearly shows that the area where the ticket was issued is not within the boundary of metropole chambers. So even if it turns out millennium do have authority to enforce parking on the little bit of concrete outside, as the address given on the NTK is "metropole chambers" doesn't this mean the NTK is not POFA compliant and therefore cannot be relied on as "address of contravention" is one of the first things required to mean RK liability can apply?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 7th Sep 17, 12:08 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Not sure. It could be taken to mean the bit of land adjacent to Metropole Chambers. I don't think it's enough to say the NtK is not compliant. You should shove this in along with your other defences though.
    Perhaps write to the person who owns/runs the company to ask them if they engage Millennium to manage parking outside their building (from memory it's a Lucy Wiley who is sole Director and shareholder - if you go onto Companies House website you can look up this information for free). They might not bother to reply, but nothing lost by that and it's worth a go.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 8th Sep 17, 9:50 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Not sure. It could be taken to mean the bit of land adjacent to Metropole Chambers. I don't think it's enough to say the NtK is not compliant. You should shove this in along with your other defences though.
    Perhaps write to the person who owns/runs the company to ask them if they engage Millennium to manage parking outside their building (from memory it's a Lucy Wiley who is sole Director and shareholder - if you go onto Companies House website you can look up this information for free). They might not bother to reply, but nothing lost by that and it's worth a go.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    I've had a reply from the council now saying salubrious passage is "an adopted highway and maintained by the Swansea city council"

    That coupled with the lack of planning permission for their signage and the LR map showing the boundary of metropole chambers is the building alone and not the area outside must surely mean they haven't got the proper authority to enforce parking there reckons this observer
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 8th Sep 17, 10:53 PM
    • 653 Posts
    • 1,238 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Ok, so it was private land, but is now council land. Usually adoption is only possible when roads are new. It may therefore have been public land for some time.

    Looks like a decent documented basis to ask the claimant to withdraw, provided you are comfortable the car was on council land.

    Time to write to them "without prejudice save as to costs" providing the print out. You could offer to settle if they pay your disbursement costs (i.e. the land registry fees) and, if they fail to do so, to put them on notice that you'll seek unreasonable costs. At conclusion of trial, assuming you are successful, this is a tool to support your request for the enhanced costs.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 9th Sep 17, 8:20 AM
    • 44 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Ok, so write directly to millennium, rather than gladstones? With a copy of the LR map and the email chain from the council. State it's public land, no realistic prospect of success etc and offer to settle the claim?
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

2,811Posts Today

8,821Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Sadly for those buying jointly "Where there are joint purchasers, all purchasers would need to be first-time buyers. "

  • First time buyers usually defined as someone who has never owned or part owned a property https://t.co/yM3urZNs8z

  • You will not pay stamp duty https://t.co/vHoCWiUXfo

  • Follow Martin