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

[Deleted User]

One last thing, if this hasn't been heard yet... the PPC contract refers to Salisbury Village, but that's an area, not specific parts of the land.

The planning documents are still available here (click on Documents and agree to the copyright). http://planning.welhat.gov.uk/plandisp.aspx?recno=33543 Looking at the location of the roads (where Dragon Moth, meets the Runway) on the plans, I do believe that this shows a distinct lack of building or road upon which to enforce any parking in the area delineated in red...

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

One last thing, if this hasn't been heard yet... the PPC contract refers to Salisbury Village, but that's an area, not specific parts of the land.

The planning documents are still available here (click on Documents and agree to the copyright). http://planning.welhat.gov.uk/plandisp.aspx?recno=33543 Looking at the location of the roads (where Dragon Moth, meets the Runway) on the plans, I do believe that this shows a distinct lack of building or road upon which to enforce any parking in the area delineated in red...

thanks, not too late, its tomorrow in the AM, ill have a read through and post my final notes as obviously all this will have to be argued against their exhibit as i cant introduce new evidences

We are queen bee court, so outside that red box (on the location tab)! or do you mean outside that red box ISNT salisbury village covered under the contract?

[Deleted User]

My reading was that queen bee court falls within the red box if the roadways were compared with a more recent version - its just that the road was not built at that date, so you can only use the other roads as reference points. Nevertheless, I may be wrong on this. I defer to your local knowledge of the lay of the land.

As suggested above, provided you can argue it cogently, I would have a stab at getting anything in.
The basis for your request to rely on late evidence should be:

(1) it wasn't until you had a statement that you knew what their case was at all or had the memorandum which suggests that there was a contract (no contract having been disclosed).
(2) Although the memorandum of contract is not dated, it has likely been held for some time. No reason has been provided for not disclosing it sooner.
(3) The PPC statement clearly contained information that should have been in the particulars of claim - CPR 16 (practice direction) requires contractual information to be set out in claims made on a breach of contract basis.
(4) Because statements are exchanged simultaneously this denies you, the Defendant the opportunity to investigate in time to prepare a statement, once documents or a clearer indication of case is available.
(5) The lack of detail in the particulars and failure to supply the contract is likely to be intentional to put you to disadvantage and, in furtherance of the overriding objectives of CPR Part 1 (placing the parties on an equal footing) you should be allowed to rely upon the documents that you have identified now now.

Simple. No?

Good luck at the county court...

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

My reading was that queen bee court falls within the red box if the roadways were compared with a more recent version - its just that the road was not built at that date, so you can only use the other roads as reference points. Nevertheless, I may be wrong on this. I defer to your local knowledge of the lay of the land.

As suggested above, provided you can argue it cogently, I would have a stab at getting anything in.
The basis for your request to rely on late evidence should be:

(1) it wasn't until you had a statement that you knew what their case was at all or had the memorandum which suggests that there was a contract (no contract having been disclosed).
(2) Although the memorandum of contract is not dated, it has likely been held for some time. No reason has been provided for not disclosing it sooner.
(3) The PPC statement clearly contained information that should have been in the particulars of claim - CPR 16 (practice direction) requires contractual information to be set out in claims made on a breach of contract basis.
(4) Because statements are exchanged simultaneously this denies you, the Defendant the opportunity to investigate in time to prepare a statement, once documents or a clearer indication of case is available.
(5) The lack of detail in the particulars and failure to supply the contract is likely to be intentional to put you to disadvantage and, in furtherance of the overriding objectives of CPR Part 1 (placing the parties on an equal footing) you should be allowed to rely upon the documents that you have identified now now.

Simple. No?

Good luck at the county court...

Thanks, im referring to the map in the link, see here, queen bee is outside that perimeter with the built roads shown.



But you feel i should argue the road and houses didnt exist in 2004 as proven here ( and yes local knowledge is that ALL these houses were built at the same time) to be able to initiate anything for this land with that provided memorandum?

the crux essentially being they need to show an up to date contract for the 2010 agreement to police the area and anything pre 2007 is pretty useless as there were no roads

[Deleted User]

Hmmm i didn't get that plan, but a different one. Strange.
So, where we seem to be is here:

1. The memorandum appears to confirm (retrospectively) that a contract existed in 2004 - but not in what terms and refers to the AOS in direct conflict with what could possibly have been agreed;
2. The memorandum terms and any plans are missing ( as well as the contract);
3. In any event, houses roads etc weren't built so 2004 contract cannot have applied to them and the parking zoning referred to in the statement would not have applied
4. The memorandum cannot be the contract as it should not be assumed to bind the company as:
a. It does not state the registered address of Bovis Homes limited
b. It is not signed by an officer of Bovis - I.e. a company director -(and it is far from clear there was authority to execute an open ended contract).

In addition to which there are arguments about signage and the points raised in the wider defence. I'd certainly suggest that you seek to put whatever you feel your strongest arguments are.

Listen. Respond. Be assertive.

infernouk

Johnersh wrote: »

Hmmm i didn't get that plan, but a different one. Strange.
So, where we seem to be is here:

1. The memorandum appears to confirm (retrospectively) that a contract existed in 2004 - but not in what terms and refers to the AOS in direct conflict with what could possibly have been agreed;
2. The memorandum terms and any plans are missing ( as well as the contract);
3. In any event, houses roads etc weren't built so 2004 contract cannot have applied to them and the parking zoning referred to in the statement would not have applied
4. The memorandum cannot be the contract as it should not be assumed to bind the company as:
a. It does not state the registered address of Bovis Homes limited
b. It is not signed by an officer of Bovis (and it is far from clear there was authority to execute an open ended contract).

In addition to which there are arguments about signage and the points raised in the wider defence. I'd certainly suggest that you seek to put whatever you feel your strongest arguments are.

Listen. Respond. Be assertive.

Thanks i feel this is the fairest summary, i will follow this as my first point after the rights of audience stuff if needs be, then onto wider points about the finer details of signage if this isnt sufficient.

infernouk

Hey guys,

Just waiting in the reception area, how will I know their rep when they arrive? Assume all I need to do is get the name and test this service?

Cheers

infernouk

They sent Georgina Philpot from the WS so no solicitor or Gladstone rep....?

nosferatu1001

If she is from the claimant company, then can be authorised - should be an officer o the company, I believe.

So no RoA question really, however you can at least cross examine on the discrpeancies identified. She should squirm.

beamerguy

infernouk wrote: »

They sent Georgina Philpot from the WS so no solicitor or Gladstone rep....?

If you can, refresh yourself on this lady

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Georgina+Philpot

The judge gave Georgina Philpot a pretty good talking to about it, which was amusing for those not the subject of the tongue lashing