Proceedings issued, NTK invalid, Gladstones/Millennium refusing to respond

Loadsofchildren123

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

can you tell me, Loadsof, who is the party who would have had final say in the discontinuance? The PPC or their solicitors?

I have read a lot on this forum and on parking prankster's blog. I have picked up that Gladstones regularly discontinue cases when acting for some PPCs but very rarely (if ever) for others. What I read into this is that there is an agreement with each separate PPC what they want their litigation policy to be, and I think Millennium must be one of those PPC which proceeds with every case, regardless. I doubt Gladstones check whether to proceed with each claim - my guess is they have authority to use their own discretion so if there is a case that looks like a loser they have the discretion to discontinue it (or maybe they do check, who knows).

The point on discontinuing is this: even where you have a good defence, there are no guarantees and you are dealing with what we lawyers call "litigation risk". Some posters know to their cost that some judges are not very good or not very brave, and many start from the standpoint that the PPC is a law-abiding organisation which is just trying to pursue its rights. That can be a high hurdle for a litigant in person defendant to overcome. You also have to be very organised, carry out all your research and go armed with legal authorities and a knowledge of the court rules. PPCs like Millennium know that they may well win even when there's a good defence. We know, for example, that someone lost in Swansea yesterday on primacy of contract.

Worst case is even if you lose, you are only paying the original parking charge with court fees of £50 on top. So it's worth a go, and of course there is the bigger picture, which is that every person who caves in and pays a PCN supports the crooked industry and makes things worse for everyone.

In my case I had raised a defence which might have had far-reaching consequences for Millennium; if right, it would have meant either that no Copper Quarter PCNs were enforceable, or that no Millennium tickets at all were enforceable - they cannot have wanted to take that risk. I had pointed this out to them 10 days ago when I sent them my draft Skeleton but it took them until today to cave in.

bargepole

Well done on getting this kicked into the long grass.

We're starting to see quite a few Gladstones cases being discontinued, often quite late in the day before the listed hearing.

If they go ahead with the case, they will have to pay ~£200 for an advocate (who may not have rights of audience, but that's a different discussion), and may still lose, and then find themselves ridiculed in one of the PP's 'You've been Gladstoned' blogs.

Or maybe some PPCs are getting fed up with Gladstones generally hopeless court bundles, and don't want to throw good money after bad.

Lamilad

Well done LoC. Nice to hear after some of the bad news we've had in the last couple of days.

It would of been good to hear of you thrashing them in court, but I'm glad you've been spared the stress of it all.

Loadsofchildren123

I've looked on the court list for tomorrow, and also Tuesday's (when Kind of Irritated had their case adjourned). On Tuesday the entire small claims list was Millennium, bar one Link, one VCS and a non- parking case. That's about 20 parking cases. Tomorrow isn't much better. All Millennium in the morning and two non-parking cases in the afternoon - about 8 parking cases.

What a huge drain on court resources.

I hope my prep and paperwork is of assistance to others. Would it be useful if I scanned the case law so it's easy for people to find and print out, and the Consumer legislation which I'd helpfully highlighted for the judge?

I also found the answer to the planning laws applicable to signage in Wales - it's the old 1992 regulations, not the new 2014 ones (those only app,y in England).

Lamilad

I hope my prep and paperwork is of assistance to others. Would it be useful if I scanned the case law so it's easy for people to find and print out, and the Consumer legislation which I'd helpfully highlighted for the judge?

The documents you have produced will undoubtedly be of enormous help for many other posters for some time to come.

If you can scan case law and consumer legislation too (with relevant bits highlighted) that would be amazing.

You are one smart cookie LoC and your advice to others on here has been second to none. Your research skills are also very impressive.

I'm sure i speak for several others when i say i really hope you'll stick around and continue to post on the forum.

I, for one, would love to have your input on my third case as it draws nearer and i start firing out loads of questions ☺

Loadsofchildren123

I think my new found parking obsession is here to stay!

I'll scan everything in the next few days and post Dropbox links.

Umkomaas

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I think my new found parking obsession is here to stay!

It gets into your blood. Hope you are able to stick around. Even though I've personally never had the pleasure of a PCN, ParkingEye messing with one of mine certainly fired me up to learn the ropes and join the fight.

I would like to think that PE's 'mistake' has cost them and dozens of other PPCs tens of thousands.

Great to be involved - even from where I'm sitting!

Coupon-mad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I think my new found parking obsession is here to stay!

I'll scan everything in the next few days and post Dropbox links.

Keep doing what you do on here, your input has been great so far.

Just be wary of private message contact from unknown posters who could be parking firms - not all people who post here come from the same 'side' and it may not be obvious from what they say. Sometimes people get a pm from parking firms or posters with a less than transparent agenda - but you are a smart poster so do stay on here and in touch.

Loadsofchildren123

Instead of sitting in court today, I went and had my nails done and out to lunch.
In a deliciously ironic twist, the car park machine (one of those ones that doesn't give change) spat out my last 20p just as I pressed the button. So instead of 2 hours parking I got 1 hour, and overpaid by £1.20. Later, when I went for lunch, I parked in an Excel-run carpark where only 1 of the machines was working...... I'm not really sure why, but I took photographs....

Kind_Of_Irritated

Just spending an hour or two or three studying your hugely comprehensive thread from start to finish, Loadsof...

It's a joy to behold :T and a horror story at the same time.:eek:

As we now know they DID discontinue in the end, but only the day before the court case! A dreadful situation for you and your elderly friend whose case you were supporting.

What is most frustrating is that due to the discontinuance we don't know which or how many of your excellent points the PPC and its legal team KNEW they would lose on. Because we can be pretty sure that is what has happened. They KNEW they'd lose and the repercussions for their company would be ringing out all over the Swansea area right now.

As you say at the end: "If I was to win on this point, that means that not a single Millennium ticket is enforceable (which would also be "yuge" for the residents of Swansea). I wouldn't have thought they'd want to set this precedent and would be discontinuing. But no."

Those of us in South Wales might or might not know there is a programme tonight on BBCWales X-Ray. It is all about Millennium Events PPC.
________________

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I have them on keeper liability so don't think the contractual points will ever need to be argued. However, I wonder if I am onto something with the fact that the signatory to the contract with the party who purports to be the landowner is an entity that has no legal personality of its own - it's not a company, partnership, human being or anything. It's just a name (Millennium Parking Services) they've made up and describe as a "division" of the limited company (Millennium Door and Event Security Limited). The Claimant is the limited company. So if the Claimant hasn't signed up to the contract, and a meaningless name has which has no legal personality of its own (ie no right to sue or be sued), how can it be valid and how can they seek to enforce it? I couldn't, for instance, sign up to a contract as Jane Loveday when I am really Janice Jones, because in some contexts that's what I like to be called - I am Janice Jones, that is my legal name, that is who I am and that is the only name in which I can sue (of course if I'd described myself as Jane Loveday aka Janice Jones (or is it the other way round?) then that would be OK. But they didn't do that).

The contract was printed on paper that at the bottom says the name of the ltd co, that it is trading as "the Millennium Group" and then lists a few names (incl Millennium Parking Services) which it says are "divisions" of the company.

In the words of Trump, I think they've made a "yuge" mistake here in the ltd co not signing the contract.
Any thoughts on this?

If I was to win on this point, that means that not a single Millennium ticket is enforceable (which would also be "yuge" for the residents of Swansea). I wouldn't have thought they'd want to set this precedent and would be discontinuing. But no.