Gladstones CCC - UKCPM

Loadsofchildren123

What I'm undecided on is how much attention you draw to the fact that you were parked in a V spot.


Do you face the issue head on, admit that you weren't supposed to park there under your lease, but argue that the Claimant isn't entitled to ticket you because a) lease doesn't allow it to and b) signage said nothing whatsoever about not parking there.


Or do you skirt around it and deal with it only if the Claimant raises it?


The disadvantage of option 2 is it comes out anyway and perhaps you then look a bit evasive. The disadvantage of 1 is you highlight the issue which the Claimant might not raise.


The pure legal argument is of course that:
a. the breach of the lease is irrelevant to this claim, which is brought by the PPC. It is a matter between you and the freeholder.
b. The PPC can't sue you for a breach of your lease, only the freeholder can.
c. The freeholder can't impose new parking regulations without taking proper steps to vary the lease (if it has the power to impose new regulations in the first place)
d. Even if the freeholder is entitled by the lease to impose new parking regulations, it can't impose on you a contractual relationship with a 3rd party (the PPC) or a charging system over and above whatever it's entitled to charge you under the lease (service charge/ground rent).
e. the PPC was only ever entitled to manage parking on the roadways and access ways, as per the contract with the freeholder. Your car was not parked on either. The contract says nothing about managing the parking in the V bays. So even if a-d above are rejected, it had no right to issue a pcn to a car parked in a marked V bay.
f. If a-d are rejected, there was no contract with the PPC. The signage didn't offer any terms for parking in a V bay. The wording about the V bay parking has clearly been added in after the event. This is a fraudulent act by the PPC. Their CoP contains an obligation on them to keep meticulous records of what signage is on display at any given time and those records have clearly been interfered with for the purpose of this claim.


All things considered, if it were me I'd choose option 1.


However, you don't have to make that decision until a week or so before the hearing, when you'll need to do your Skeleton.


In an effort to dissuade them from proceeding, write now to point out the issues over the signage, to invite them to withdraw and to put them on notice that if they do not withdraw you will not seek costs. Also put them on notice that if they do not withdraw you want to cross examine the person responsible for keeping the records of signage because you believe that a deliberate fraud is being carried out and you want to raise it before the court. Also say that you want the person who signed the statement to be in court to be cross examined about the contents of their witness statement, particularly the parts relating to signage. If they turn up at the hearing without these people then you will seek an order for an adjournment and for their attendance at the next hearing.

Loadsofchildren123

OP, have a read of Jinxycat's thread - it's a good read, although many different issues to yours.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5587819


It includes this wording about the IPC CoP - very important because it says what the landowner contract SHOULD have said but didn't in your case:


The Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee. Their Code of Practice, in Part B section 1.1 states that the agreement between the landowner and the Claimant: ‘Must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly.’


So you should be challenging their locus standi to bring a claim on that basis because no such authority has been given in the contract.


Don't worry that some of the things we've been discussing aren't in your Defence or WS. If anyone on the day objects to certain matters you are raising, because they weren't in your defence or WS - you should respond with these arguments:


1. they didn't produce any detail or documents at the pre-action phase (in breach of paras 6(a) and (e) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct)


2. their Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and provided no real detail or even a summary of the claim (in breach of various paragraphs of Rule and PD 16)


3. they chose to further particularise their claim by providing proper detail of it in their WS. This is a bald attempt to amend the claim without actually seeking or obtaining the court's permission to do so.


4. because the standard direction provided for EXCHANGE of witness evidence, and because of the breaches under 1 and 2 above, until you'd seen their WS you didn't have any proper understanding of the basis upon which the claim was being pursued, or the evidence on which they were relying. Therefore you have had no choice but to respond to the claim further now. Because you did a Skeleton (and I would do one) they have had ample notice of the points you are running in defence of the claim.


5. To refuse some of your submissions on the basis that they are tantamount to an amended defence for which leave has not been given would effectively deny you the right to defend the claim properly, would be against the rules of natural justice, and would ignore the fact that the Claimant (who is legally represented) has effectively amended its PoC by way of the further detail in the WS.
If it concerns the court, then the court has the power to grant leave to amend the defence and should make such an order. Otherwise it should refuse to consider the new matters raised in the C's WS.


Don't put 1-5 in a Skeleton as to do that would be inviting them to object. But be ready in case they do object. I wouldn't expect them to, but just in case.

AOneVS

In court tomorrow, at last! They have refused to even acknowledge my attempts at asking them to withdraw, even when I pointed out deliberate fraud and the threat of a counter claim. They must be very confident or completely incompetent.

Rightly or wrongly, I haven't done a skeleton argument. My reason being that there is irrefutable evidence that the signage/ contract was inadequate. I'm going to push on that point. I don't think I'll run into too much trouble, considering their witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Good luck! Don't forget to allow enough time to get there early to get through security, and text the BMPA in the waiting room to check the Rights Of Audience of the hired gun they send. Then ask the Judge to ask about it (take the case law and the news article about it with you and dare to raise it first, this is covered in all RoA threads here and by the Parking Prankster in his blogs).

The Prankster shared with some of us, this success emailed to him about a Gladstones case last week:

''I came late to the coverage you guys have given in fighting the likes of Gladstones, UKPE Ltd et al. Anyway I mounted my own defence, made a huge number of errors along the way but this morning attended Stockport County Court to fight my corner on my own.....

I wont bother you with details, though I will share the Court Report as and when in appears. Save to say that all I said when walking in lamb to the slaughter was:

Me: "May I ask a question please sir?"
Judge: "Yes"
Me: "May I check the lady's Right to an Audience please?"
Judge:"What do you mean?

Me:.....nervous bits I remember from reading your website...

Judge listened to the nice lady. Asked for 10 minutes. We left, returned and he Struck their claim out,

What a wonderful question, thanks''

AOneVS

That looks promising. Due to the hearing being moved, I had a new District Judge assigned. Is there some risk with contesting RoA that it could get adjourned? I couldn't be doing with anymore waiting with this one!

Coupon-mad

I have heard of a case adjourned but that would be (usually, IMHO) if you agreed to an adjournment - why would you? If they can't be bothered to turn up, ask the Judge to (effectively) turf them out and explain how you have been put to months of distress and then taken a day off work. And no, you do not see why an ostensibly 'professional' firm of solicitors with an entire team behind them should be allowed an adjournment, if they field a non-exempt person who they know has no RoA - and has probably been kicked out in these cases before - contempt of court surely to keep sending these people?

Take your costs schedule and proof of income and travel, and parking for the hearing...

The BMPA will 'virtually hold your hand' by text in the waiting area, just find out from the Usher, the name of the person who has turned up (and don't accept any paperwork from that person or agree to a 'friendly discussion' except you might want to ask how they think they have RoA. The fact they are a solicitor or barrister is NOT the answer...ask the BMPA, read threads about RoA and note the BMPA's text service).

AOneVS

Success! Will report back shortly .

DoaM

Liquid lunch?

Umkomaas

AOneVS wrote: »

Success! Will report back shortly .

Good one. :T

Dish the dirt asap!

AOneVS

I arrived at Chichester county court at 11am and the usher said the claimant’s representative, Mr Town was in the waiting room. Blimey the room was small. He immediately asked if I had anything to say before we went in, to which I politely declined. I asked who he was, and he responded with local Barrister. I didn't bother contesting right of audience. The usher said the judge (District Judge Ellis) was ready, so we went in 20 minutes early.

Right away she said she had two points to raise with Mr Town. Namely the service agreement that had been submitted by the witness, Sophie Fenn. The Judge had noticed that the parking restrictions only mentioned 'Roadways and access areas'. Mr Town pointed to the site plan which mentions visitors parking, but she was having none of it. She said that there was no indication that was part of the service agreement.

He brought her attention to the lease, which mentions visitor parking restrictions, again she was having none of it and said there was no definition of temporary (parking) or any penalty for breaching the condition.

She then summed up, dismissing their case on point 1. She asked if I wanted to make any other claim today, so I put forward my schedule of costs. She was fine with the half day from work and asked me to justify the unreasonable behaviour I was claiming for. Pretty easy really (late witness statement, no response to part 18 or SAR) and I made a particular point about the picture of the sign in their witness statement, the facsimile one and she agreed it looked particularly dubious. He tried to argue that it was genuine, but failed. £120 costs awarded.

All in all, the claimant’s farcial witness statement won it for me. I certainly couldn’t have done it without the help I received on here. Having the defence and witness statements checked and checked again by people on here gave me the confidence to go head to head with them and come out with a great result!

To coin the Parking Prankster’s phrase, UKCPM, you’ve been Gladstoned!