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

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

Bovis do indeed own the land as it was intended to become adopted highway, but appears never to have been adopted by Herfordshire Council / Highways.

Nevertheless, I still don't believe the contract document provided is good enough. Of further interest (and what I have learnt from the documents obtained) is the fact that the road and houses did not, I believe, exist in 2004 (the title your friend has emanates from the developer in 2006/7). As such, it is hard to see that the land referred to in 2004 can possibly have conveyed any obligation to enforce parking or confer an entitlement over roadways that were created after that date, particularly where the information regarding the land/description is so limited.

Hey,

So your saying the document dated for 2004 shouldnt cover this roadway as the properties didnt exist until 2006/7? Or am i misunderstanding. Could it not be that it was built in 2004 and sold in 2006/7? Im trying to deduce what to argue from this

to add from local knowledge of living here for 25 years, these houses were built, and then the scheme came in retroactively to this, so dating it pre the houses being built seems odd

Coupon-mad

to add from local knowledge of living here for 25 years, these houses were built, and then the scheme came in retroactively to this, so dating it pre the houses being built seems odd

Not just odd, but something for your crib sheet to ask the hired gun to explain in Court! I think they are going to struggle against you.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not just odd, but something for your crib sheet to ask the hired gun to explain in Court! I think they are going to struggle against you.

I will add that! does the crib sheet need format? or is that just a fancy word for notes?

Basically the houses existed, were all rented to students, and the few residents got angry at all the student cars and the scheme came in to stop the student cars. It wasnt there from day one, atleast in the location I was ticketed in, as there was no perceived need when the houses were built. Of course this is local knowledge not hard facts

Coupon-mad

'crib sheet' = your own notes!

[Deleted User]

The current scheme came in during October 2010 - Google "clamping Hertfordshire school" for the local press article. That's not my point, because the PPC could argue that there is entitlement to enforce and its simply the methodology that has changed.

My point is that if the actual street and housing didn't exist it cannot form part of the land then authorised in 2004 so when and with whose permission do they enforce. If you are missing schedules you may be missing street details for enforcement.

You don't want to deploy evidence of a later valid contract that MAY be enforceable if your best argument is to discredit the 2004 one. This is your call. But my observations are:

1. That the current parking restrictions seem to have been arranged in 2010 by discussions between deHavilland residents association and the deHavilland housing partnership, which as far as I can tell have both now dissolved. If I'm right, and I believe I am, that would be sufficient to terminate the pcm entitlement.

2. In their statement they use zoned information from 2010 and then try to rely on a document referring to a 2004 agreement to give it legal basis. I think not.

3. This should be straightforward, but I'd be saying the documents provided cannot be relied upon in the circumstances and that the claimant was on notice of the need to demonstrate entitlement.

This is for you to research not me, tbh, as I live about 70 miles away

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

The current scheme came in during October 2010 - Google "clamping Hertfordshire school" for the local press article. That's not my point, because the PPC could argue that there is entitlement to enforce and its simply the methodology that has changed.

My point is that if the actual street and housing didn't exist it cannot form part of the land then authorised in 2004 so when and with whose permission do they enforce. If you are missing schedules you may be missing street details for enforcement.

You don't want to deploy evidence of a later valid contract that MAY be enforceable if your best argument is to discredit the 2004 one. This is your call. But my observations are:

1. That the current parking restrictions seem to have been arranged in 2010 by discussions between deHavilland residents association and the deHavilland housing partnership, which as far as I can tell have both now dissolved. If I'm right, and I believe I am, that would be sufficient to terminate the pcm entitlement.

2. In their statement they use zoned information from 2010 and then try to rely on a document referring to a 2004 agreement to give it legal basis. I think not.

3. This should be straightforward, but I'd be saying the documents provided cannot be relied upon in the circumstances and that the claimant was on notice of the need to demonstrate entitlement.

This is for you to research not me, tbh, as I live about 70 miles away

Brilliant, thanks for your continued investigative research on this.

So essentially, dont demand a new up to date version of their contract to operate, instead question the credibility of what they have presented in that pretty much none of the parties involved are around anymore from 2004 and the house and road werent even in existence to be covered by it, and that something made in 2004 cant just be swept over any distance across any number of years without evidence of a new agreement with specifics as shown in their site map date vs agreement date?

I assume i cant introduce new evidence 2 days before hearing as I cant serve to court and gladstone, so im relying on drawing this from their witness statement primarily?

[Deleted User]

Normally I'd say yes. But most litigants in person get away with murder as the court are mindful of lack of knowledge. Some report back that they never had to say anything!

Do whatever it takes and try whatever argument you think is needed to get traction.

I'd take in print outs to prove the AOS commenced in 2007 not 2004, so we still have no contract or evidence it's still in place.

Indeed, pcm haven't proved Bovis still own the land now that (I) houses and roads have been built and (II) have been sold. Just sayin'

Coupon-mad

dont demand a new up to date version of their contract to operate

Absolutely, never help a PPC to paper over the cracks. Let them rock up with what they've got.

If they ask for an adjournment, refuse and lay it on thick to the Judge that you've missed work to attend and defend this baseless claim, and they use solicitors who do this every day, Gladstones having shared Directors with the Claimant's Trade Body they can't pretend they need any more time to prepare evidence of fundamentals like the authority from the current landowner.

It's in the IPC Code of practice, and Gladstones Directors wrote it...

But in any case you might get this kicked out on RoA anyway, within minutes, with the BMPA's help! Again, disagree with any bleating about an adjournment for the same reasons.

infernouk

Thanks guys, i have a print out of the AOS article about the 2007 laws point, its more if i can introduce this information regarding the agreement and the dissolution of parties and property not existing, i suppose i can just raise the questions in the room as a result of the evidence they provided in their WS

safarmuk

I think you need to be ready to introduce the information by way of questioning / refuting the items in the PPCs witness statement. E.G. perhaps an opening would be something like:

PPC: "We have the authorisation to operate"
You: "Great, but you are relying on a document from 2004 which is interesting given the road and houses you claim you are enforcing were not built until 2007 - can you explain?"
<this then gives you the opening to finish it off while the hired gun scrambles for information they wont have or begs for an adjournment ...>

Assuming it is not already thrown out by the DJ before then.