We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
ES Enforcement County Court Claim
Dot2101
Posts: 60 Forumite
Hi there
ES Enforcement sent a parking charge notice through in July. The incident occured at the Charleston Road retail site in Halifax (outside Next)
The photo shows the car on double yellows (the car was waiting my the front door for a passenger to load the car up). The letter sites "not parked correctly within the markings of a bay of space" as the reason for sending the letter.
Decided to appeal to ES, had no reply. Then received letter before claim from Gladstones, again appealed this within the 14 day requirement outlined by Gladstones, and yet again no reply. Then received County Court papers on the 14th October, contacted Gladstones who claim they did not receive my letter!
Anyhow I am currently writing my first draft of my defense thanks to other posts on here and some help from the Parking Prankster, all of which has been so useful so I can not thank you enough.
Here is my first draft so far, i would appreciate it if someone could read through and see if i need to point anything else out.
I also have the picture of the photo they have taken and been back to the site (parked in an appropiately marked bay :rotfl: ) to take some pictures of the signs. Please could someone let me know how to attach these and I will do if this will help you understand the case better.
Thank you for your help in advance, this board has already been a great help.
Statement of Defence
I am (inserting my name), acting on behalf of (insetr name), the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:
(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the
time of the alleged incident.
(2).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
(3)
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defense.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.
(4)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on 10/08/2016, upon the original postal PCN being received asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.
viii) A recording of the supposed time in which the vehicle in question is “parked” not correctly, in order to comply with the IPC Code of Practice part C 3.1 (b)
The claimant did not respond.
Furthermore, a response letter was sent to Claimants Solicitors, Gladstones, upon receiving a letter before claim on 05/10/2016. The defendant duly followed instructions to respond to the letter before claim within 14 days. Gladstones did not respond and issued Court Claims.
The Defendant contacted Gladstones who claimed to have not received the letter sent by the Defendant. The Defendant emailed said letter to Gladstones on the 24/10/2016, thus far has not received a response.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car and the signage terms (which are deemed too far away meaning no contract can be concluded), despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.
(5) The Defendant considers where the road traffic act may be applied, which in many areas applies to private land so in this case the use of double yellow lines would have an accepted meaning that the driver can stop for unloading or loading, or stopping to allow a passenger to alight. As ES Enforcement have so far failed to provide any duration of the alleged offence, the Defendant questions that this photograph could have technically been taken seconds after stopping to load and therefore the incident time is not relevant for this case.
(6).
ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
(8)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and
contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
(9)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.
10) The defendant notes that there are no parking cameras in the location in question, therefore the photo supplied was taken manually, close to the vehicle. This amounts to predatory tactic which does not comply with the IPC Code of Practice Part B 14.1 “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.”
(10)
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an
alleged £100 debt.
d) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) he Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
ES Enforcement sent a parking charge notice through in July. The incident occured at the Charleston Road retail site in Halifax (outside Next)
The photo shows the car on double yellows (the car was waiting my the front door for a passenger to load the car up). The letter sites "not parked correctly within the markings of a bay of space" as the reason for sending the letter.
Decided to appeal to ES, had no reply. Then received letter before claim from Gladstones, again appealed this within the 14 day requirement outlined by Gladstones, and yet again no reply. Then received County Court papers on the 14th October, contacted Gladstones who claim they did not receive my letter!
Anyhow I am currently writing my first draft of my defense thanks to other posts on here and some help from the Parking Prankster, all of which has been so useful so I can not thank you enough.
Here is my first draft so far, i would appreciate it if someone could read through and see if i need to point anything else out.
I also have the picture of the photo they have taken and been back to the site (parked in an appropiately marked bay :rotfl: ) to take some pictures of the signs. Please could someone let me know how to attach these and I will do if this will help you understand the case better.
Thank you for your help in advance, this board has already been a great help.
Statement of Defence
I am (inserting my name), acting on behalf of (insetr name), the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:
(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the
time of the alleged incident.
(2).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
(3)
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defense.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.
(4)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on 10/08/2016, upon the original postal PCN being received asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.
viii) A recording of the supposed time in which the vehicle in question is “parked” not correctly, in order to comply with the IPC Code of Practice part C 3.1 (b)
The claimant did not respond.
Furthermore, a response letter was sent to Claimants Solicitors, Gladstones, upon receiving a letter before claim on 05/10/2016. The defendant duly followed instructions to respond to the letter before claim within 14 days. Gladstones did not respond and issued Court Claims.
The Defendant contacted Gladstones who claimed to have not received the letter sent by the Defendant. The Defendant emailed said letter to Gladstones on the 24/10/2016, thus far has not received a response.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car and the signage terms (which are deemed too far away meaning no contract can be concluded), despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.
(5) The Defendant considers where the road traffic act may be applied, which in many areas applies to private land so in this case the use of double yellow lines would have an accepted meaning that the driver can stop for unloading or loading, or stopping to allow a passenger to alight. As ES Enforcement have so far failed to provide any duration of the alleged offence, the Defendant questions that this photograph could have technically been taken seconds after stopping to load and therefore the incident time is not relevant for this case.
(6).
ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
(8)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and
contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
(9)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.
10) The defendant notes that there are no parking cameras in the location in question, therefore the photo supplied was taken manually, close to the vehicle. This amounts to predatory tactic which does not comply with the IPC Code of Practice Part B 14.1 “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.”
(10)
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an
alleged £100 debt.
d) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) he Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
0
Comments
-
Under 2b I would add that it is contended that keeper liability has not been established under the POFA Schedule 4, due the the lack of:
- a compliant Notice to Keeper
- 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and terms in clear, prominent lettering at the DYL, to inform drivers that the usual loading exemptions for DYL do not apply here (otherwise it is reasonable for a driver to think they CAN load)
- any 'relevant contract' at the double yellow lines (no consideration flowed between this claimant and the driver)
- any 'relevant obligation' not to load at the DYL, as would normally be acceptable outside a store with their permission.
I think I would add near the part about it being OK to load on DYL, the fact that as a genuine customer of Next, the driver was authorised to load their paid-for goods and that it is normally the case that leasehold retailers undoubtedly enjoy easements and rights of way. Otherwise they would be unable to accept deliveries or allow any unloading/loading to take place, which is absurd. Indeed the consideration at those DYL flowed not from the Claimant but in fact, from Next (can you get a letter from the Store Manager to offer as evidence later, that Next support your position and that sometimes customers must move their cars to load bulky purchases)?I also have the picture of the photo they have taken and been back to the site (parked in an appropiately marked bay ) to take some pictures of the signs. Please could someone let me know how to attach these and I will
do if this will help you understand the case better.
Host the pictures in Dropbox or tinypic or photobucket. Then show us the URL link (the sharing link) but change http to hxxp or the forum will not let it past!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks coupon mad that's really useful and a good idea to see if next will write a letter, if they agree should I send this in with the defence?
I did also ask next to contact ES to ask them to cancel the ticket when I first got the letter but they wouldn't as they said they don't employ the company, that was from head office but hopefully on a more local level they will make a letter... as you said of course people will temporarily stop there to carry something heavy into the car!
Thanks again i will add these points in and copy over again0 -
No, the ''Next letter'' if you can get it, would be for your 'exhibits' later on, when you and your opponent exchange Witness Statement and evidence (exhibits) some weeks prior to any hearing date. Your local court will send direction about that much later.
Other exhibits will be your signage pics; the POFA Schedule 4 printed out; Henry Greenslade's words about Keeper Liability from the POPLA Annual Report 2015; the TRSGD 2002 and/or the Highway Code (proof of the meaning of DYL to any reasonably circumspect driver); any case law transcripts from the Parking Prankster's store of case law, all of that sort of thing!
But that's for later, to keep you busy over the Winter weeks - if this proceeds! We are finding that these rubbish claims, when well defended, are often not actually ending up at a hearing but are being stayed due to Gladstones inaction (so far). Maybe because we help people with bespoke defences so they are not just the same old template stuff and we try to cover all bases, as does the Parking Prankster.
So maybe G's move on to hearing with easier ones. Certainly we've seen no hearings from G's cases and therefore, none lost that this forum has assisted with.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi Coupon Mad, following the advice from both yourself and Parking Prankster I have added the extra points as suggested and will be sending this out.
Thank you again for all of your help... I am hoping that they won't want to try and take it further now!0 -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5553131
The above case will help later as well, it gives you a link to download a new court transcript of a recent Appeal case. It is persuasive on lower courts and (although it's about a residents block car park) in his decision the Judge takes time to define the meaning of 'parking' and at your hearing you can argue, this is not parking:The incident occurred at the Charleston Road retail site in Halifax (outside Next). The photo shows the car on double yellows (the car was waiting my the front door for a passenger to load the car up).
Gladstones cases where a defence was created on this forum, with assistance, have never yet gone further. No hearings. So none lost! But if some do go to hearings I am convinced they are winnable with the right evidence put forward.
Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what you MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325
Do not think putting in the defence is your only job! Unless this is discontinued, once allocated to your local court, you will be given a clear date by which YOU MUST file the evidence ('exhibits') and any Witness Statement (i.e. yours, as bargepole says in the above link!).
As well as court transcripts, you will also need the Beavis case sign in your evidence as well as a printout of Schedule 4, as most Judges will not be familiar with it. Oh, and an extract from the POPLA Annual Report 2015, specifically the Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade's words about 'Keeper liability' and that no parking firm should ever say that the driver can be assumed.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi coupon mad
Hoping for some help again please
I submitted my defense letter after I acknowledged the claim
I then received a n180 DQ which I also responded to. Gladstones wanted a paper hearing (which I know they commonly request) following threads read on there I have said that we wish to have an oral hearing rather than paper
I have now received a transfer of notice of proceedings and is now transferred to my local court in Huddersfield
Is there anything I can be doing in the meantime before I await to hear from the court judge of their directions? From experience does this mean it's more likely to go ahead as a hearing? I know ES have been taking quite a few people to court recently (particularly today) but this has been mainly bury and Manchester (presuming relating to their spittalfields site). The site in question for this case is on charleston road retail park in Halifax (which the management of this car park has now been handed to H X Management which look to be a relation of the owner of E S .
I tried speaking to a member of staff in next who said the management is nothing to do with them and mentioned if people come to collect heavy furniture they have to go to the loading bay rather than the front. If it comes to it I will approach the management there to see if they will write a letter of some kind.
Looking forward to hearing of any advice
Thanks
Charlotte0 -
You can start putting together your evidence such as:I have now received a transfer of notice of proceedings and is now transferred to my local court in Huddersfield
Is there anything I can be doing in the meantime before I await to hear from the court judge of their directions?
- a photo or two of that place, showing no sign next to the lines. Or if there is a sign, proving that it is prohibitive and offers no contract and quite possibly mentions no agreed 'parking charge' either, merely (if anything) a ban on parking. Or nothing stated...either is good! Get evidence.
- that there was an implied right to bring a car to the doorway area without obstructing other vehicles or pedestrians, in order to load bulky purchases and nothing/no-one/no terms obviously or prominently told you otherwise. Nothing informed you of a 'parking charge' and this was not even parking (loading being a wholly different kettle of fish and reasonably implied within a right of way offered to visiting vehicles at this publicly open car park).
Start gathering some case law to support your side.
There is the Beavis case which turned on clear and prominent signage (unlike in your case) so it can be used in your favour. Get a copy of the Beavis sign to illustrate what the Supreme Court considered to be a clear contractual terms for parking (unlike in your case). The 'Beavis case' sign is in the Parking Prankster's blog here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html
Not at all, this is normal and this stage happens every time.From experience does this mean it's more likely to go ahead as a hearing?
It's more likely to go to a hearing if they pay a hearing fee, but even then not certain. Gladstones do bail out and they do bungle cases as well!
I would ask the Manager for that NOW, or an email confirming (if he will) that you purchased xxxxx furniture/bulky items on xx/xx/16 and needed to move the car for loading purposes only. Nothing saying whether you should or shouldn't have been at that place because how could you have known if no staff member and no signs advised either way?If it comes to it I will approach the management there to see if they will write a letter of some kind.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi coupon mad
Thank you for replying
I have begun my digging, I had taken pictures back in August of the signage and the lack of signage where the car was stopped for loading. The sign is the exact same which has been used at the spittalfields site which has recently been found to be forbidding, I've read this from the case that parking prankster recently posted about on his website (30th nov post about case 29/11/2016 C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester, in front of DJ Iyah)
In my defence I commented about the lack of signage which the judge comments on in this case as been further away than 10ft (closest to the spot in my case is a good 20ft and is for disabled badge holders) so I will use this case as a piece of evidence.
However the judge has also brought up that the wording breech means it can only be the landowner that can put in the claim. After a lot of digging I have found the landowner and they confirmed via telephone that they are the landowner of the retail park, I am now awaiting to have this confirmed via email for my case. Let's say if they don't have it in writing can I still add this in as part of my case that they confirmed via telephone? And could ES say that as part of their role managing the car park for the landowner they can submit claims on their behalf, or does it actually have to be in the landowner to make it a valid claim?
I have emailed Next so I will give them abit of time to respond, otherwise il go into the store again to try persue further (don't want to nag staff too much at this time of year!)
When gathering my evidence and making copies do I also make a copy of the defense submitted after acknowledging the claim? Is there any particular rulings about how to put the evidence together, evidence piece 1, 2 etc? Do you then have to put an explanation of why each piece supports your defense?
Also you mentioned it is more likely if Gladstone pays the £25 fee, Is there a way for me to find out if they do or is just a case of waiting for a letter?
Apologies lots of questions again but very greatful for all your support so far0 -
Hi coupon mad
Thank you for replying
I have begun my digging, I had taken pictures back in August of the signage and the lack of signage where the car was stopped for loading. The sign is the exact same which has been used at the spittalfields site which has recently been found to be forbidding, I've read this from the case that parking prankster recently posted about on his website (30th nov post about case 29/11/2016 C8GF4C12 ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester, in front of DJ Iyah)
In my defence I commented about the lack of signage which the judge comments on in this case as been further away than 10ft (closest to the spot in my case is a good 20ft and is for disabled badge holders) so I will use this case as a piece of evidence.
However the judge has also brought up that the wording breech means it can only be the landowner that can put in the claim. After a lot of digging I have found the landowner and they confirmed via telephone that they are the landowner of the retail park, I am now awaiting to have this confirmed via email for my case. Let's say if they don't have it in writing can I still add this in as part of my case that they confirmed via telephone? And could ES say that as part of their role managing the car park for the landowner they can submit claims on their behalf, or does it actually have to be in the landowner to make it a valid claim?
I have emailed Next so I will give them abit of time to respond, otherwise il go into the store again to try persue further (don't want to nag staff too much at this time of year!)
When gathering my evidence and making copies do I also make a copy of the defense submitted after acknowledging the claim? Is there any particular rulings about how to put the evidence together, evidence piece 1, 2 etc? Do you then have to put an explanation of why each piece supports your defense?
Also you mentioned it is more likely if Gladstone pays the £25 fee, Is there a way for me to find out if they do or is just a case of waiting for a letter?
Apologies lots of questions again but very greatful for all your support so far
(don't want to nag staff too much at this time of year!)
staff , no MANAGER YES , take many small children , and KICK OFF to the MANAGER
Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Ha no small children to take in tow but understand what you are saying and if don't get a reply from head office who I had originally been emailing back in August then it will be a trip to Next!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards