ES Parking Enforcement

Handbags-at-dawn

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but I thought you are the RK; the Claimants do not know who the driver was; so you are the only name they have. Surely, then, you must also be the Defendant?

As for the Defence: the Defendant admits he was the person who bought and displayed the ticket - ie was a party to the contract (para 10). It is therefore immaterial whether or not the RK can recall who was driving (para11).

I'm afraid the Defence reads to me as though the Defendant has an identity crisis..

billinghamn

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but I thought you are the RK; the Claimants do not know who the driver was; so you are the only name they have. Surely, then, you must also be the Defendant?

As for the Defence: the Defendant admits he was the person who bought and displayed the ticket - ie was a party to the contract (para 10). It is therefore immaterial whether or not the RK can recall who was driving (para11).

I'm afraid the Defence reads to me as though the Defendant has an identity crisis..

Apologies for not being clear. My wife is the defendant. I am acting as her "Litigant Friend" and am working up the defendence on her behalf.

She is responding as the Registered Keeper.

Also apologies for delay in responding. Mad busy at work. Back on to this today to finalise my wife's defence paperwork.

billinghamn

Castle wrote: »

This might be important!!:-
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/15031364.Winwick_Street_site_stops_operating_as_car_park_following_threat_from_planning_officers/

I noticed this reference in [FONT=&quot]claxtome's thread. This is the site on which my wife's car received a PCN and is the case she is defending.

I've just been down there, and the parking signs (£2.80 all day) are still up. Appreciate it's been a few weeks since this article (18 Jan), so perhaps they were taken down, and have now been put back up.

Might this issue help my wife's defence? Sounds like the council believe that the land owner did not have planning permission to use the land for parking?
[/FONT]

The_Deep

You may not be aware of it, but two days ago Glasstones was mentioned in the HoC as a "rogue solicitor" and has been reported to the SRA. This may well mean that this firm's days are numbered.

Watch this.


http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

claxtome

IamEmanresu reported that the site in question in the guardian was below in post #140 of my thread:

The site reported by the Guardian is a piece of land on the eastern side of Winwick Street opposite the Kings Head public house. The expansive car park area on the western side of Winwick Street is authorised

I have seen this waste ground quite small which I seem to remember seeing parking signs etc.
They are not there now.
It is the land to the left of the loading bay in front of the shop opposite the pub.
I don't think it is the car park in mine and your wife's case but willing to listen if you find I am wrong.

Maybe IamEmanresu can provide a link/evidence please as he went on to say:

From the council for another case ... so which car park was it.

The name of parking sites is so confusing round there

billinghamn

claxtome wrote: »

I don't think it is the car park in mine and your wife's case but willing to listen if you find I am wrong.

Apologies - was hoping for another opportunity to twist the knife in!

billinghamn

I've updated a couple of items in my wife's defence as follows, based on the excellent advice provided in this thread by the community.

Firstly to make reference to the recent debate in the House of Commons where Gladstones were named:

6.2 The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence. Research indicated they are the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Gladstones were referred to in a recent debate in the House of Commons, in respect to proposed Legislation: Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (2nd reading). It was said that Gladstones (amongst other solicitors), operate a ‘robo-claim’ system. The link between the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) and Gladstones was mentioned, as was the changing of names of directors to try and hide this relationship.

Lastly, to add reference to the Council Adjudicator's comments on fluttering tickets, I have inserted a new item:

10.7 I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in my defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs.

· In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”

· In DB05035M the appellant bought a ticket. It fell from the dash when she closed the door so she picked it up and replaced it. She then opened the back door to remove some items and found the Pay & Display on the foot well on her return. The adjudicator had the opportunity to examine the original ticket. It was made of flimsy paper with no adhesive mechanism.''

· In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “The Council contend that the onus is on the motorist to ensure that the ticket is properly displayed but except for using Sellotape or Blutack, which some motorists do, I do not know what else she could have done. Such measures may be an answer to the problem but it is a problem created by the Council’s decision to use non-sticky tickets. I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars.

I was going to include ref to the 3 recent cases of fluttering tickets, but wasn't really convinced that they were very positive (even though the claimant's demands were not upheld).

Everything else is the same (noting that items from 10.7 onwards have been renumbered.

My wife will be submitting this Defence statement on Mon if no one has any other comments.

Thank you to everyone for your support so far.

The_Deep

I have seen this waste ground quite small which I seem to remember seeing parking signs etc.

I wonder if all the permissions are in place for such signs?

billinghamn

What do people think about submitting a counter-claim for the expenses involved in defending a fluttering ticket case? Is there a template that I should follow?

The_Deep

You can alreading claim for these if it does get to court under CPR27.14(2)(g).

https://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/small-claims-unreasonableness-and-costs/

Imn the past judges have tended to dismiss them, unreasonably imo, but recent events in Parliament might persuade them to lower the bar, especially those brought by Gladstones and BWL whom MPs have singled out as being ill-considered, and reported to the SRA.