NWCP Car Parks PCN - Over 28 days

Coupon-mad

Can they argue they haven't received Witness Statement. I will print out sent email so hopefully all ok and didn't sent by post.

They can't because you will have that printed out sent item with you!

how much talking will I need to do.

If this is Manchester court, maybe nothing! The Judge there should get it.

Can even mention I find it difficult to express myself.

Yes of course, don't worry, the Judge is human.

Your skeleton should be bullet points really, a crib sheet to help you. Don't forget to file a copy of the costs schedule with the court not less than 24 hours before the hearing this week.

manutd99

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They can't because you will have that printed out sent item with you!



If this is Manchester court, maybe nothing! The Judge there should get it.


Yes of course, don't worry, the Judge is human.

Your skeleton should be bullet points really, a crib sheet to help you. Don't forget to file a copy of the costs schedule with the court not less than 24 hours before the hearing this week.

Its in Preston court.

As i'd done what I thought may be used as my Skeleton il post it up anyway before amending to gain your thoughts on how/what to amend if it needs to be. Do I need to shorten it?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8bevgaibhgn5f9/Skeleton%20Draft%20Forum.docx?dl=0

Hope im not troubling you too much. Im practically posting on every point. Has become a huge thread.

[Deleted User]

Not a bad first stab at signposting your case.

The skelly needs to be short and should not have appendices - all the relevant documents should be in the trial bundle.

16, 17, 18 can all be thinned right out. They are prolix. No lawyer needs an exposition of the late Lord Denning's rule as to onerous terms - it is enough to merely mention it. Similarly you will need to discuss Beavis but shouldn't need a full page to do so. You will need to simply say it is distinguishable because the site and circumstances are different. You can reference the paragraph of the judgment that assists - no need to set it all out.

Less is more - you need to nail the points clearly so you can talk the court through them if needed.

Each DJ will have a different approach. Many will seize control by asking for specific points to be addressed by claimant/defendant. It avoids waffle and can make things fairer if one party is less than comfortable or isn't quite on topic.

manutd99

Johnersh wrote: »

Not a bad first stab at signposting your case.

The skelly needs to be short and should not have appendices - all the relevant documents should be in the trial bundle.

16, 17, 18 can all be thinned right out. They are prolix. No lawyer needs an exposition of the late Lord Denning's rule as to onerous terms - it is enough to merely mention it. Similarly you will need to discuss Beavis but shouldn't need a full page to do so. You will need to simply say it is distinguishable because the site and circumstances are different. You can reference the paragraph of the judgment that assists - no need to set it all out.

Less is more - you need to nail the points clearly so you can talk the court through them if needed.

Each DJ will have a different approach. Many will seize control by asking for specific points to be addressed by claimant/defendant. It avoids waffle and can make things fairer if one party is less than comfortable or isn't quite on topic.

Thank you so much for your input. It is much appreciated.

Want your opinions and views on a couple of points of my case mainly contract issues.

Here is there full contract which was sent to me by email some time ago. They have made an error when submitting their defence and alleged WS. They missed out page 3. On page 2 point 3.3 it says please see clause 7. As they have failed to send page 3 their paperwork will not include clause 7 which is on page 3.
How significant is this as can argue it is not the full contract as judge wont have page 3 to in his bundle.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jck7aktkwpyh46r/Parking%20Enforcement%20Contract.pdf?dl=0

Castle pointed another interesting issue above. On the contract it has N&V properties (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC393439)

On the land registry document it has N and V Properties (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC369873/filing-history)

N&V and N and V are 2 different companies although both and NW car parks are all owned one person - Mr Rigby.

Does the fact that the landowner company and company on enforcement are different make the enforcement contract invalid. If not invalid surely this has huge relevance.

Together with page 3 missing (hoping they don't now bring as mentioned page 3 on WS) has any significance in the eyes of the law. Can/will judge dismiss case on these 2 points alone? I hope these points could prove vital. What do you think?

manutd99

Johnersh - No need to reply to this post as know you must be busy. Il wait coupon-mad or someone else to reply.

Aim to (time is limited) hand in skeleton by 2pm Thursday to court so judge can hopefully read before the hearing.

What do I need to take to the hearing and how many copies of each. I have submitted my schedule of costs today.

Defence (3 copies), Witness Statement including exhibits/Evidence (3 copies) and Skeleton (3 copies). Do I need to take all of that and 3 copies of each? That's a lot of printing to do.

Do I take all of this on the day or do I submit everything (Defence, WS and Skeleton) to the court Thursday before my hearing.

manutd99

I have cut it down. Down to 6 pages. Can anyone advise wether its good to go now or not please. Anything I should add? Anything paragraphs I need to delete? I have left out the bit about N and V and N&V. Il just bring it up on the day as do not want to tip them.

Apologies if people think Im posting too much. Need input in every little step. Sorry guys.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/luhgllffb93shki/Skeleton%20Draft%20Forum%20v2.docx?dl=0

No more answering to me after Friday

Coupon-mad

Looks much better and it's easy to follow. Have you files Henry Greenslade's words as a sheet already, with your WS? Take along the companies data about the two different LLP companies/numbers, as evidence to assist you on the day, if allowed.

I spotted 2 typos:

1.2 has 'Gleenslade'.

and somewhere in 3, you had 'charger' instead of 'charge'.

I have left out the bit about N and V and N&V. I'll just bring it up on the day as do not want to tip them.

Yes, you are entitled to question the witness about their (lack of) witness statement and evidence...I hope you will find this is more fun than you are expecting.

Did you send the Claimant a copy of your costs schedule already, if not attach it with your skeleton argument by email.

What do I need to take to the hearing and how many copies of each. I have submitted my schedule of costs today.

Defence (3 copies), Witness Statement including exhibits/Evidence (3 copies) and Skeleton (3 copies). Do I need to take all of that and 3 copies of each? That's a lot of printing to do.

Ideally yes, but two copies might suffice, just so you have one spare - except you don't need 3 copies of your initial defence because that's undoubtedly already held by the court and Claimant, via MCOL.

Do I take all of this on the day or do I submit everything (Defence, WS and Skeleton) to the court Thursday before my hearing.

Because by then you will have already filed all of this, before, take it all on the day, as well as proof of what you've emailed and when (all relevant 'sent items' printed out, in case the PPC lies about receiving things).

Take proof of your earnings as well, and a printout of 27.14(2)(e) in case you get a Judge who doesn't know 'loss of leave' is a cost that can be claimed, even for a salaried person taking a day's holiday, because it's a wasted day:

''a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing''

[Deleted User]

As I understand it,

1. the parking company was formerly run by the same guy that owns the land (now resigned from NW Car Parks)
2. Mr Rigby personally (not with anyone else) owns the land - i've not checked, this may be important
3. Mr Rigby is Partner/Member of N&V Properties.

The first issue is probably irrelevant
The second issue may be relevant. If he owns the land personally, not in partnership, these are separate legal entities. (see below).
The third issue - if N&V Properties LLP as a body corporate have the benefit of the contract, then there needs to be a contract between Mr Rigby and N&V Properties LLP authorising them to manage the land (as there needs to be between landowners and residents management companies). This is because the partnership is a body corporate - Macaura v Northern Assurance Co 1925 AC619 will apply - it matters not if the Partner is also the landowner and therefore has the knowledge of owner of both legal entities.

This is technical, but a stickler for details may like it. Obviously if there is another partnership called N&V Properties (i.e. there are two businesses, then you are toast).

It may be that better points are the usual ones such as signage - given that the proforma contract is silent as to type of signs, number or site terms.

manutd99

Johnersh wrote: »

The second issue may be relevant. If he owns the land personally, not in partnership, these are separate legal entities. (see below)..

On the land registry document (see below) it simply states N and V properties so cant be sure if sole owner of land or in partnership.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xv5s3f7xhr71r6/Land%20Registry.pdf?dl=0

Johnersh wrote: »

The third issue - if N&V Properties LLP as a body corporate have the benefit of the contract, then there needs to be a contract between Mr Rigby and N&V Properties LLP authorising them to manage the land (as there needs to be between landowners and residents management companies). This is because the partnership is a body corporate - Macaura v Northern Assurance Co 1925 AC619 will apply - it matters not if the Partner is also the landowner and therefore has the knowledge of owner of both legal entities.

Yes as you mentioned a stickler for details. With only a day for my court hearing there is not much point in looking into it and mentioning too much detail at the hearing.

I will simply mention why land registry has NandV and parking contract has N&V and see what the parking company say. If they say their is an association I can ask for the contract between Mr Rigby and N&V. Hope I'm going along the right lines but won't put too much emphasis on it

Castle

manutd99 wrote: »

On the land registry document (see below) it simply states N and V properties so cant be sure if sole owner of land or in partnership.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xv5s3f7xhr71r6/Land%20Registry.pdf?dl=0

The land registry shows N & V Properties (Lancashire) LLP as the landowner, whilst the NWCP contract states N & V Properties as the client. The most likely answer is that somebody at NWCP was too lazy to put the full, (and correct), name on the contract; and nobody noticed, until now. Given that Mr Rigby is a partner in a separate LLP called N & V Properties, you would have thought he would have noticed he was signing for the wrong LLP.

The "witness statement" makes no mention of the landowner and as previously noted, actually refers to a different car park.