Letter before claim

Loadsofchildren123

The £3 register entries aren't what you want.. It's the documents that are behind the register that you want (I've the lease and head lease). I think these are either £10 or £15 each.

Re the WS you could say that in your statement about the headlease but I'd write and ask specifically for it as well.

Loadsofchildren123

That helps you on a Fairlie v Fenton argument. You can't expect to be able to sue on a contract but not be sued on it (they are trying to avoid liability).
Prankster may put this in your skeleton.
The Fairlie case is about the ability of the PPC to act as the landowner's agent and ability to enter into contracts.

Fruitcake

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Exactly, loadsof... just what I thought. I won't redact anything from the AST, or from anything I am using as evidence.

Ok, fair enough. I'm no expert at this sort of thing so it is good you are getting advice from someone more experienced.

Fruitcake

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Btw, any thoughts on this "parking permit"? (back of the one I have). It talks about clamping. Illegal since erm... when?

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p714/Zinqua1/20161127_125126%202_zpsxeke07ou.jpg

Since 2012 when the POFA 2012 was enacted and clamping on private land was prohibited.

Kind_Of_Irritated

WOW! 2012?!? And LP didn't start at this site until start of 2015! Couldn't they afford to update their parking permits!?

Fruitcake wrote: »

Since 2012 when the POFA 2012 was enacted and clamping on private land was prohibited.

Anyone reckon this is a point worth mentioning in my WS?

Loadsofchildren123

This came up on another thread and the consensus was no because they haven't clamped anything so the threat is pretty meaningless.

Kind_Of_Irritated

It might have been me mentioning it before. I'd forgotten about it since. Just remembered when I was looking through my files. Point is they could be seen to be harassing people who wouldn't necessarily know the law had changed. People like me.

So imho, they shouldn't get away with it, even if they don't perform the threat. For instance, if it had said "Your car (and all contents, human or otherwise) will be disposed of at the nearest car-crush stop if permit is not on show" we should say "Aww, that's OK, cos they didn't perform it". What?!?! No. In my opinion a threat is still a threat.:eek::mad:

Loadsofchildren123

Or that they can't make their minds up what contains the terms and creates the contract, the sign or the permit, they just shove onerous terms up wherever they can and hope some stick (these ones being illegal insofar as the clamping is concerned). The point is if they are claiming that a sign/notice can create an enforceable contract, then why aren't these terms the contractual terms, how can they say the contract is the sign? These terms make no mention of a £100 charge do they?????

Kind_Of_Irritated

In his WS MG picks up on my mention in my Defence of the back of the permit (clamping), by saying the sign, not the permit, is the contract. So destroy the sign's validity and the contract is destroyed. Thank you Mr Gardner.:T

Loadsofchildren123

I do think it muddies the waters with the sign. They've handed out permits with one set of terms and conditions and have put up signs with different ones. The back of the permit is a "notice", as in "signs and notices". It's probably in breach of their code of practice in many respects plus threatens an illegal act.
Use it to muddy the waters - IF there can be said to be a contract, what are its terms. Look at these 2 different sets of terms, one on the signage and one on the rear of the permits. Which ones are part of a contract? What status do the other ones have?