Gladstones CCC - UKCPM

Coupon-mad

Under the contract:

'Restrictions'
No parking on roadway or access areas.

But the earlier WS says the contravention was none of the above, it says 'overstay' (i.e. using their own evidence, that is not something the PPC has been contracted to issue charges for, regardless of what they drafted on the sign, they are not allowed to ticket for 'overstay'). The second page 'site plan' add a purported '4 hour' rule but that's not signed nor supported by any evidence.

The signatures are undated. The signatures are redacted and no name is shown - could be a mock-up, this appears to be a recent piece of paper run off by UKCPM and shows no evidence at all as to who purportedly signed for 'the freeholder'(WHO?) in 2011, nor any terms of the contract whatsoever. There must be a site agreement/schedule...withheld. Or expired?

The V-bay section appears to be cut & pasted onto that facsimile sign (different shaded background). Certainly added later (when?) even if it IS on the actual signs on site, because the line above it is centralised next to the pictogram so anything below it is new/added (or fictitious).

The photo taken doesn't match the facsimile sign, as you observed!

Two different 2011 commencement dates, one in May, one in August 2011 are shown.

Not sure that UKCPM even used that logo shown top right of the 'signed page' in 2011

AOneVS

I redacted the freeholder signature and details. The developer signed it. They are undated though.

Good spot on the restrictions. And on the 'site plan & information', does that say they're responsible for litter picking??

This link shows the earliest snapshot of the CPM website - around February 2012. Their logo is the same then.

How do I go about requesting better detail\clearer pictures??

System

How do I go about requesting better detail\clearer pictures??

You point out to the judge the poor quality of the photo and ask the judge to ask the Claimant to produce better pics. The onus is on them to prove the signs were clear which you can't do with unclear pics.

It's their burden not yours

... and yes UKPCM do offer parking and litter picking so they can wander round appearing to pick litter but ticketing. So have a second look when you see a litter picker from now on.

AOneVS

I've probably spent too much time reading the Court Procedure thread, so not sure when to ask what you suggest. Would this be at the hearing?

AOneVS

Bit annoyed. Just got confirmation that my hearing was double booked. It will now be moved, but no idea when :mad:

beamerguy

AOneVS wrote: »

Bit annoyed. Just got confirmation that my hearing was double booked. It will now be moved, but no idea when :mad:

I was not aware that the courts have been taken over by
British Airways ??

Hope the confirmation is real ... ie from the court

AOneVS

I did wonder that myself, especially as it was someone from Brighton County Court.
I emailed my local court who said it was correct - 'This is usual listing policy which is done at Brighton'

Loadsofchildren123

1. The signage:
a. the one in situ doesn't say anything about parking in the V spots, the facsimile one clearly isn't the same -plus you have your own clear evidence about what signs were put up on different dates.
b. Clearly forbidding wording, doesn't make any offer at all.
c. No offer can have been made when you already had the right to park anyway.
d. Isn't the Visitor problem (that your lease said you shouldn't park in V spaces) irrelevant as between you and the Claimant (as opposed to you and the freeholder)? The sign just says you have to park in proper bays (see 2a below) and the contract also says that they are only engaged in respect of cars parked on roadways or access ways).
e. they have produced no evidence at all of where the car was parked (ie that it was in a V bay) have they?????


2. The contract:
a. It gives them a very limited job, just to manage the parking so that there is no parking on the roadways/in the access ways? nothing at all about ticketing in V bays (which ARE marked bays aren't they?)




I think keep it simple.


i. They haven't demonstrated that I was the driver. E v L contains no rebuttable presumption that I was - it was a criminal case where there was compelling forensic and witness evidence that the RK was the driver at the time of the accident. Henry Gleenslade of Popla also says that there is no such presumption. Also, POFA contains an assumption that the RK is the legal owner of a vehicle, but is completely silent on any assumption that RK should be assumed to be the driver. If that was the intention of the legislation then that is what POFA would have said. I am one of 2 people named on the car insurance and I have no way of recalling which one of us was driving. Here is evidence that the car was repaired on that day as well, and therefore the garage mechanic may well have parked it there. [be ready for DJ to make a finding that you were driving though, it's his right to make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities].
[ii. We haven't gone into the POFA aspects of you as RK - was the NtK served in time and is it POFA compliant?]
iii. Even if I'm found to be driver or the NtK is POFA complaint and therefore I am liable as keeper, the C must establish that a contract was formed between it and the driver and that the driver breached that contract.
iv. I already had a right to park granted to me and my wife in our leasehold title. The lease has never been varied.
v. To establish a contract, the C has to prove 3 elements: offer, consideration and acceptance. They cannot have offered me parking: I already had that right. They cannot have offered me any consideration: I already had the right to park. I did not accept any offer because I have simply exercised my right to park and there was in any event no sign saying that I couldn't park, other than not to park on the roadside, which I didn't.
I'm not sure whether you should just gloss over/ignore the V points as they haven't demonstrated that you were in a V space. Did you produce just extracts of your lease or the whole thing? If the whole thing, they may spot it so be ready to deal with the point but perhaps don't draw attention to it yourself.
vi. the terms offered must also be clear and, if in signage, prominently displayed so that they can be seen, read and understood. There was no legible sign at all.
vii. Points about the confusing signage showing that their WS cannot be accurate and showing your evidence about what was actually displayed at the time.
viii. If the point arises about you being in breach of your lease by using the V bays: the lease provides no right to the freeholder (and therefore no right can have been passed on to the PPC) to pursue me for the recovery of a set charge for any breach. The lease does not allow the freeholder to impose on me a contract with a 3rd party concerning rights which I already have. The lease also does not allow the freeholder to levy a charge in respect of any breach of the covenants in the lease. There is provision for the freeholder to pursue a leaseholder for breach of covenant, but this only allows for the recovery of the costs of pursuing, it doesn't allow any charge to be levied. The only sums the freeholder is entitled to charge me are the service charge and ground rent (and any costs associated with pursuing me for breaching the lease covenants).
ix. The contract with the freeholder is very limited: it only allows for parking management in respect of cars parked on roadways/accessways, not in marked bays/driveways. There is no evidence my car was parked on the roadway or an access way (and the reason given for the pcn is "overstay").


BTW, their last para in the WS:
a DJ in Swansea held earlier this month that the amount they add back into the charge after the discounted period ends is to be treated as the amount they claim they are entitled to add on for their "admin" fees - so they should never be allowed something on top (usually it's a £100 charge discounted to £60 then it goes back up to £100 if not paid within 28 days - so the amount added back in is £40 and that's what I'm talking about - DJ Taylor in Swansea said that the PPC was already getting that extra £40 so to allow further admin fees on top of the £100 would be double counting).

AOneVS

Thanks for that LoC. Is that a Skeleton Argument?

I am now in limbo, waiting for a new hearing date, so no rush to get this to them?

Loadsofchildren123

It's the makings of a Skeleton. Now that you've seen their case this is the final thing to do, and you should serve and file it at least 4 days before the hearing and take an extra copy with you. A Skeleton isn't compulsory but it's a helpful document - the point of it is that the DJ, if he/she has time, will look at it before the hearing and be directed to the documents and case law that help YOU. If they don't have time, you use it as a crib sheet in making your submissions and it makes your job easier on the day.


Cross refer it to the trial bundle (there should be a direction in the original order setting out the timetable for the C to do a trial bundle which will be paginated and should be served/filed 7 days before). So as soon as you get that you do the Skeleton and cross refer it to the bundle.


Take 2 extra copies of the Skeleton to court in case it doesn't reach the court file or in case the other side deny receiving it.


If the C misses important things out of the trial bundle you'll also need to make your own supplemental paginated bundle which you'll need to file at court and send to the other side.


Also make and take with you a bundle of your legal authorities that you rely on, with the relevant parts highlighted.


The only other thing to do is a costs schedule in case you win costs - this must be served and filed at least 24 hours before the hearing. And if you want to challenge RoA you need to read up on this and get together the relevant case law and arguments for the day in court.


When I say "served" and "filed" this means filing it at court (ie sending it there) and serving it on the C.