IAS Appeal Lost - Now what?

Luke_Rick

I appreciate all the help from everyone, namely Coupon-Mad.

Would anyone be able to just confirm the e-mail address i can file my defence to? I don't want to get caught out by sending this to the wrong people!! I cannot see an email address on the court documents either....

Thanks in advanced on this part.

Coupon-mad

I don't think that letter helps, I would edit that post and remove that quote above. Better evidence came from Link themselves with those boundaries marked out showing the area was not part of the enforcement - plus you could ask your friends AND the owner of the allocated parking space, to provide witness statements for you later when you do your one before the hearing, confirming this:

{they had} permission from the owner of that spot to use it as they did not have any cars to park there. This had been agreed verbally between them and over the course of nearly 2 years tenancy, no PCN tickets have been issued, even with 2 cars parked on the exact spot where i received my PCN.

Email for CCBC is:

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

No need to send a copy to the other side. CCBC do that at this stage.

Luke_Rick

Just had another breakthrough with this. Well, not maybe a breakthrough, but was just double checking all paper work and evidence they have provided. On their sitemap, they have done this by a key, symbolizing all their signs (there are a total of 3 different signs throughout the site). They have shown that the particular sign in question would be that designated as "Type 5". Now, they have attached Type 5 sign to their evidence, however, i have a picture of the sign that is there on site and it is NOT as they describe.

Their Sign 5 Evidence as states: "Vehicles displaying a Valid Parking Permit and Parked in the Correct Allocated Bay"...

Whereas..

The sign actually reads: "Vehicles parking within the confines of a marked bay".

Could this also be used as a defence in regards to their completely stupidity when submitting evidence that is completely inaccurate?

Umkomaas

Could this also be used as a defence in regards to their completely stupidity when submitting evidence that is completely inaccurate?

Why not? Just adds to the hoops they will need to jump through, although it's not necessarily the showstopper.

Luke_Rick

Final draft i believe till i can submit via e-mail.Feedback much appreciated.

---

1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr

---

, residing at

---

is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The vehicle was parked on the land alleged in the defendant’s claim but not within their enforcement boundaries, according to evidence provided by this Claimant themselves.

3) It is denied that any 'parking charges/damages and indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

4) A sitemap was provided at the IAS appeals stage, which the sitemap indicates the area of coverage by a key that had been drawn at the bottom of the sitemap, symbolizing 3 different enforceable signs and their respective locations, along with bounding boxes to distinguish areas of enforcement. The defendants parked vehicle was not in fact inside any enforcement zone as shown in the sitemap provided by the claimant. Therefore, the defendant asks the court to strike the claim on this ground.

5) Along with the sitemap provided, all 3 enforceable signs within the site were posted as their evidence. The claimant shows in the sitemap that the sign in question for this PCN, would be that designated as "Type 5". The “Type 5” signage as the claimant evidence at the appeals stage reads: "Vehicles displaying a Valid Parking Permit and Parked in the Correct Allocated Bay". Whereas, the signage in question actually reads: "Vehicles parking within the confines of a marked bay".

6) Not only have they failed to follow their own enforcement areas, but the evidence they’ve also supplied is incorrect.

7) A parking charge was issued for an allegation of "not parked within a designated bay" but this was contested on appeal because there were no bay lines other than "bricks" in the pavement and no signs at all in view, relating to this spot. The nearest sign is on another wall some 25 metres away and relating to a separate car park area.

8) The place where the car was parked has room for two cars and the residents confirm that it is usual to park two cars here, as was the case. Indeed I have evidence from Google maps that this is/has historically been used as a two car space and the residents confirm they are not charged for using it for two vehicles. No signs preclude or restrict the parking of two vehicles at this place so there was no contravention. Even if the signage terms are considered by the court to be possibly capable of creating a contract, they were unlit and 25 metres away, at the entrance to a car park and it is not reasonable to assume that a car park sign elsewhere on a dark wall, relates to these isolated/unmarked spaces.

9) The signs are in any event, prohibitive and make no offer. Consideration does not flow between a driver and this Claimant, when parking in these double-car spaces on this roadway, so there was no agreed contract.

10) I was parked as a legitimate visitor, upon the invitation of the residents who are tenants at this location where there is no restriction upon this unallocated double car space and no known charge for using it. The residents have rights of way and easements flowing from their Tenancy Agreement and, as this area is outside the enforcement area, Link Parking have no right to disregard the rights of residents and their visitors.

11) In this regard, I rely upon the transcripts in the (Gladstones solicitors) cases of:
- Link Parking v Parkinson - C7GF50J7
- PACE v Noor - C6GF14F0
- and the persuasive Appeal decision from 2016 by His Honour Charles Harris QC: Jopson v Home Guard - B9GF0A9E.


12) The residents' Tenancy terms/permit terms (which do not mention any parking charge risk) and the above court transcripts will be provided in evidence. The cases support the view that penalties which ignore the rights of residents make life in a block of flats ''unworkable'' and it was found in each case that the signs - such as they are - were of no consequence and created no new contract terms capable of unilaterally varying the grant under a residential lease. Indeed the parking restrictions foisted upon residents and visitors were a matter of derogation from grant and I believe my case, as a legitimate visitor of a resident with primacy of contract, is on all fours with those cases.

13) In any event, this space is not within the 'site map' enforcement area as evidenced to the IAS stage appeal, where it can be noted that the anonymous (Trade Body provided) so-called 'adjudicator' saw and commented that the evidence from this operator failed to show sufficient nearby signs and/or marked lines. Bizarrely, the decision still went against me on the spurious reasoning that a previous PCN issued in another area for a completely different reason must mean that I was 'aware of the restrictions'.

14) I realise now I had little or no chance of success during the spurious 'appeal' process. It is a fact that this Claimant is a member of the 'International Parking Community' (IPC), a Trade Body which also operates the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) which is seen as anything but a fair 'ADR'. Turning down my appeal based merely on the fact I had paid a different PCN months before, is sadly typical of the spurious decisions regularly reported in the public domain, calling into question the independence of the IAS.

15) Both the IPC and IAS are run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. Due to this conflict of interests, the Claimant and their representatives do not come to this matter with clean hands and far too many cases are resulting in claims because this notorious industry runs two conflicting Trade Bodies, both proving incapable of self-regulation/fair appeals.

16) The full charge is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in the following claim:

---

. The Particulars are not clear and concise in their Particulars of Claim found on the Claim Form.

17) The Particulars of Claims fails to fulfil CPR16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a “Parking Charge Notice(s)” with no further description. The defendant also believes there has been a similar Particulars of Claims dismissed at another court, and suggest they are simply “robo-filing”. This is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.

18) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £162.49. This appears to be an added cost invented fancifully and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

19) This claim merely states: ''parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. As the contractors are not the land owners, it is also unclear as to how “damages” are caused.

20) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

21) I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

b) The Claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal Representative’s costs’. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, requiring no intervention from a Solicitor often generating up to £50,000 of income they are put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

c) The Claim is £162.49 without the added “Court Fee” and “Legal Representative’s Costs”. Without information to the contrary, I believe the original amount for a Parking Charge would have been £100 or £60 if paid within the first 14 days. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, I also object to all additional charges associated with this Claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

22) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

23) I request the court strike out this claim for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Luke_Rick

Update here: So i've filed for no specials directional hearing (i.e. to be heard on papers alone) and has been submitted to my local court. I'm guessing it's time to start getting my court documents ready?

Redx

yes, all explained in the NEWBIES thread, post #2

evidence , pictures , documents , transcripts , witness statements , etc

Coupon-mad

Luke_Rick wrote: »

Update here: So i've filed for no specials directional hearing (i.e. to be heard on papers alone) and has been submitted to my local court. I'm guessing it's time to start getting my court documents ready?

What? Why? Look at other threads by:

Jack Basta

Gin and Milk

both usernames with Gladstones cases showing how to have refused that idea. I hope I am misunderstanding you and you have asked for 'no' paper hearing, and that you are having a face to face hearing?

Please tell us you didn't go along with Gladstones little trick where they 'suggest' a paper hearing would be good?

Luke_Rick

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What? Why? Look at other threads by:

Jack Basta

Gin and Milk

both usernames with Gladstones cases showing how to have refused that idea. I hope I am misunderstanding you and you have asked for 'no' paper hearing, and that you are having a face to face hearing?

Please tell us you didn't go along with Gladstones little trick where they 'suggest' a paper hearing would be good?

Apologies, may have been my wording. I have opted for a hearing, absolutely. I am not doing this on papers.

Fruitcake

The Prankster has two mentions of Link Parking in the last few days on his blogspot.

You should complain to your MP about this, and point him in the direction of Stephen Dougherty, MP for Cardiff as he has been getting a lot of complaints about Link.

Also mention in court that Link have been the subject of a Parliamentary question as they have been causing lot of problems for residents in other cases where they have no business harassing genuine residents and their visitors.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/