PCM Ticket whilst parked outside a friends house visiting, do i pay?

infernouk

Molts wrote: »

IMHO the landowner authority is a joke. Notwithstanding the fact that it is 13 years old with no evidence of it's duration (I've seen this as a winning POPLA appeal point) therefore no indication of its current validity, it also obliges the PPC to abide by the BPA CoP when PCM are clearly members of the IPC.

I'm no expert but this renders it null and void surely?

I wonder if "Anne Wicklow" is available to attend court? :rotfl:

Ill add this to my skeleton then? as you make a valid point

Johnersh wrote: »

Is there a managing agent? Presumably not still Bovis Homes? I'm guessing that was only soon after the properties were built. If that is right, I'd go with proof of the new management and say that PCM have no authority (at all) even if a permit was required.

Im not sure, but yes this is when the properties were built as i am a local, any idea where I can get record of the management?


Also did anyone get a chance to look at my skeleton as it stands? I wanted to post it tomorrow!

infernouk

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The landowner authority is your key. It talks about an AOS that only came into existence in 2012 after the Protection of Freedoms Act.

There would need to be some trail of evidence of the real agreement rather than this false one. Did Anne Wicklow sign in in 2004 or sometime after 2012. Does she exist?

Sorry i didnt see this post as it was carried across the page, is it up to me to prove this information? or just to raise the question around them. Your saying that this evidence of their operation is fake as its dated 2004 for a law that came in 2012? that seems a killer blow.

Could it not be that the Data of original instruction is from a previous document and this is just a refresher?

[Deleted User]

Based on the preceding post, I have undertaken an archive search of the BPA website for cached pages.

The link below is to a cached page from 2012. As you will note, the BPA themselves state that the scheme came in from 2007, some 3 years after that contract was apparently dated. That does require (Ahem) clarification.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111218095626/http://www.britishparking.co.uk:80/AOS

A statement of truth has been signed. I would be writing to the Claimant now to demand the personal attendance of their witness, whereupon she will be invited to explain this discrepancy.

If the Claimant is worried about contempt of court, the proceedings may well be dropped like a stone. If there is an explanation that is easier to come by, I'm sure they'll let you have it by return. What you then elect to do if the Claimant discontinues, is of course, a matter for you.

nosferatu1001

DO exactly as Jonersh suggests

No silly "without prejudice" headings either. You WANT this to be shown in court.

Give them a short period to explain themselves. You add it to the skeleton anyway.

[Deleted User]

I wonder if "Anne Wicklow" is available to attend court?

She now works for Grace Homes and is a recent award winner at the 'Bricks Awards' (chapeau). On to business, her details are here: http://www.gracehomes.co.uk/about-us/meet-the-team

Since you have an email, you also could quietly enquire to see if she recalls ever signing it.

That is all. :cool:

infernouk

Hi guys, unfortunately the responses came in too late and the skeleton went off this morning, can i email this to the claimant and not to the court? or does it need to go to both? I can pop it in the post for the court tomorrow as a separate item?

any recommendations on the format of the request or is an email sufficient? no fancy court formatting?

i proposed sending this via email...


Further to my provided skeleton argument, I must also demand personal attendance of your witness, Georgina Philpot, on the court date. She will be invited to explain the discrepancy in her witness statement ‘exhibit i)’.

In aforementioned exhibit alluding to an agreement to operate a parking scheme on this land, the signature of one ‘Anne Wicklow’ is dated 2004. Of course you are aware that the AOS scheme came into place in 2012, as documented by the BPA themselves: https://web.archive.org/web/20111218095626/http://www.britishparking.co.uk:80/AOS bringing into question the validity of this exhibit.

A statement of truth was signed by the witness and this conflict in facts presents an argument for contempt of court, in which case I would invite you to drop the claim. If this is not the case and I am mistaken, I urge you to clarify the situation with the upmost urgency or face further consequence.

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

She now works for Grace Homes and is a recent award winner at the 'Bricks Awards' (chapeau). On to business, her details are here: http://www.gracehomes.co.uk/about-us/meet-the-team

Since you have an email, you also could quietly enquire to see if she recalls ever signing it.

That is all. :cool:

im going to assume she wont want to become embroiled in an argument she doesn't need to be part of, is it really worth contacting her? just to ask if she signed the document and then attach it? surely she wont risk endangering a former employer

[Deleted User]

(1) The link shows the AOS commenced in 2007 (unfortunately the old web pages weren't cached for that date).

(2) I propose that you contact the defendant not the court with this and ask for an explanation and the personal attendance of their witness if it proceeds to trial - no doubt ms philpot will be able to explain to the court the how it is that the contract from which the PPC is said to derive authorisation to issue parking notices is dated 2004, yet refers to a scheme that only came into being and operated from 2007. The claimant is invited to provide to the defendant (by email) in advance of the hearing the electronic file(s) to support the creation date of the document appended to the witness statement

You have your statements in, that is fine. I would refrain from alleging contempt or anything like that until you have their explanation. The above makes the position clear enough.

(3) regarding Ms Wicklow, see the comments below.

It does no harm to ask Ms Wicklow politely. I believe it to be the correct lady, but cannot guarantee that either. Whilst you have reservations, it follows that she may not be that happy if this has been prepared retrospectively. If she would rather not reply (or frankly cannot remember back that far), then nothing lost. It's an email. It's not like she's compelled to attend court for you.

If the message gets back that you're doing due diligence that's not harmful, either.

When I approach third party material witnesses in the day job 'out of the blue' (so not a wholly dissimilar circumstance) I probably only have a 5% success ratio in persuading them to help. But when they do agree to help, it's a whole lot easier to win...

Coupon-mad

upmost urgency

utmost...

IMHO, 'upmost' is as bad as typing curb instead of kerb!

[Deleted User]

Looking again at the contract, it says date of original instruction it is confirmation of an agreement - not the agreement. Where is the original contract? Insofar as it goes, do lots of Google searches as it's a goldmine with this...

1. Anne Wicklow was sales director. I doubt that constitutes a controlling mind of a big contractor like bovis. Was she authorised to sign a contract on behalf of Bovis Homes? Did the parking company check that authority?

2. There is no company number. Which Bovis Homes does authorise them - there are several? The registered office address of the company isnt used - it ain't the one in that document and (AFAIK never has been).

3. Bovis Homes (Central Division) no longer exists, having been sub divided into smaller regions in c.2015. Arguably the contract is therefore terminated on the basis that the contracting authority has ceased to exist and it doesn't name successors in title.

It's niceties like this that a contract make. I don't think what we have works as a contract or reflects whatever terms might originally have been agreed. I can't pretend a DJ couldn't simply take a view against you, but I think there's enough here to question the whole parking scheme.

PPCs would be content to disclose contracts if they could actually sort out their entitlement to charge. They should be able to. In many cases it seems they can't.