PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services

Loadsofchildren123

1. DJ Taylor held in another case that the uplifting of the charge from the discounted £60 to the full £100 IS the extra "charges" the signage says they will add on if they have to chase the RK - ie the £40 is the extra charges. So they can't then add on an extra £50 on top of that as well. Remember to raise this. The case was Link Parking v Warlow, it hasn't been reported anywhere or blogged and it was in April in Swansea (DJ Taylor is one of the Swansea DJs)


2. I don't think the judge will care about that typo in IB's statement - its quite usual for solicitors to prepare statements for clients, it doesn't mean you can say "it's not their words, so it must all be untrue". The typo just makes them look a bit silly that's all. You can make the point but if the judge is unimpressed, just say "I can see you are not with me on that point, so I will move on".


3. Quite a few of the DJs have recently favoured the fact that the PPC can't identify the driver. You must show that there is no obligation on the D to name the driver, they have to prove their case.


4. Argue that you had pre-existing rights to your space and could park there yourself or invite others to do so. The lease doesn't provide for those rights to be overridden by a third party (the Claimant), but even if it does, there is no provision in the lease for payment of anything other than service charge/ground rent (ie no right to levy a separate charge for failing to comply with new parking regs introduced after the leasehold was sold to you/landlord)


5. Argue that compliance with POFA is mandatory - compliance is strict, not voluntary, and you can't claim the protection of POFA for "largely" complying with it, only by strictly complying with it - the language used in the statute is "must" (not "may") and it clearly says that the four conditions MUST be complied with in order that a PPC may make the RK liable.

SR06

Thank you for the above Loadsofchildren

Coupon-mad

SR06 wrote: »

Court date is Fri for us..

How did it go, SR06?

SR06

Both claims were dismissed!

The DJ agreed with the Claimant that their NtKs were POFA compliant.

We had argued that they weren't on points a), b), and g) of Schedule 4 para 8/9. And that both NtKs and NtD had to comply, not just one or the other. There was some discussion around a) and in particular the word period. The DJ agreed that it could be applied to the PCN for exceeding max stay but was irrelevant to the PCN for parking without a permit displayed.

The DJ then moved on to the Lease. MPS were relying on the letter I posted in #11 on this thread and that we knew a parking enforcement was in place. We argued about the Lease having primacy of contract, etc. The DJ said that the contract could have been altered. We argued that the Lease didn't give rights for third-party to alter it. The DJ wasn't completely convinced on this.

The DJ then moved onto other arguments we brought up.

The piece of paper attached to the windscreen that MPS chose to ignore on the day. We argued that we had gone out of our way to prevent this situation, and that it was a slip of paper with the managing company's details on it.

We also argued that the letter in post #11 says The parking enforcement was implemented purely to endure that all residents have the ability to parking in their own allotted car parking space without being impeded by residents or non-residents parking in the wrong places.

The DJ agreed with us on both arguments and dismissed the claim for not having a permit displayed.

We also argued against the evidence the Claimant had submitted for exceeding max stay - that their evidence didn't prove that we exceeded the max stay period. This is where the DJ pressed on who was driving the car, and how did we know the vehicle had been moved between the two time-stamps. The Claimant agreed that the vehicle could have been moved.

The DJ agreed that it was up to the Claimant to prove it hadn't been moved and dismissed that claim also.

Thank you to everyone who helped along the way.

Coupon-mad

Fantastic news! WELL DONE.

I hope that LOC123 and the Parking Prankster get to see this win, yet again v Millennium!

Who turned up, was it India Beaven?

Did you get to ask her about the Heath Parade sentence and to explain the relevance of Alder v Moore, after all she reckoned that was her statement of truth so they must have been her words...

Did the Judge ask Mum any direct questions, do you mean he/she asked who was driving? And who was the Judge/which court please?

SR06

Thank you.

Yes, India Beavan represented MPS.

We did ask about the Heath Parade comment. The judge then asked IB who wrote her WS, was it a template? IB said that she gets a template from Gladstones that she alters for each case.

We forgot to ask to explain the relevance of Alder v Moore.

The judge didn't ask any questions directly to My mother. Only if she wished to give any comments or ask anything herself.

Yes, the judge asked who was driving on the day and how did we know the car had been moved. We said a family member was driving.

It was DJ Taylor in Swansea.


We're really disappointed with the way the management company (CLC) have dealt with this. Numerous times I've spoken to the block management coordinator about what happened on the day and he refused to help unless there was "reasonable cause" to do so.

Given that we won our case based on the evidence MPS submitted themselves, and that the block management coordinator had this evidence in hand all along (he went through it with me on the phone), can we claim against them? For DPA breach, trespass? Or anything else?

Coupon-mad

Given that we won our case based on the evidence MPS submitted themselves, and that the block management coordinator had this evidence in hand all along (he went through it with me on the phone), can we claim against them? For DPA breach, trespass? Or anything else?

See what LOC123 advises...it would be difficult to claim against a management co while family still live there, if they do?