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

Coupon-mad

I saw that other thread today where they'd gone on the forums to try to stuff the keeper (not Millennium though) - where do they find the time to trawl these things?

Let's just say, I don't think they did trawl the forums.

Loadsofchildren123

I've been doing more obsessive research. Now I'm onto planning permission. I read a really good post on another new thread by Coupon-Mad with a draft Skeleton which contained information about planning permission and a claimant not being able to rely on an illegal act to found a claim. The regulations referred to seem to apply only to England. I am in Wales. Has anyone any idea what the equivalent is in Wales, as I can't find anything on google? When I go on the local council website there's a link to click on to see if you need planning consent and when I click on it, it takes me to the England regulations so maybe they do apply (but then why are they described in the way they are, with England in brackets????)
Any ideas anyone?
The council website shows no application for permission. I've done a new Part 18 Request for information asking them to prove they got permission or didn't need it (then I can rely on RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell).
I've also noticed that they only joined IPC on 18.11.15, whereas the parking event was on 30.10.15 and the signs it is claimed were displayed at the time have on them the IPC logo (as well as BPA's) - so I have asked them why, if they were not members, were they displaying the logo - this seems to be an indication that they have produced an up to date sign, not the one on display back in October 2015. Why would they have had IPC's logo displayed if they were not members?

Loadsofchildren123

By the way, I think my MPS/MDES contractual argument is a little similar to VCS suing on signs which clearly said they were Excel's signs and which didn't name VCS, so I can rely on those cases as well for authority that the sign has to name the correct entity - how can there be a valid contract if you do not even know who it is with? In the Excel/VCS cases at least the other party was clearly named. In my signs it is clear as mud. The first time anyone is named is in a small box about 2/3 of the way down the sign, where it says "Millennium Parking Services is solely responsible for providing parking space maximisation and is not responsible in any way for the car park's surface" and then there is wording about how payment made by credit cards will be subject to a surcharge, and another box where it says if the PCN is not paid within 14 days the full £100 is payable, and if not paid within 28 days the DVLA will be contacted and the keeper pursued.

Coupon-mad

I would say IMHO regulations do normally apply to England and Wales. Nice work again!

Loadsofchildren123

I think you must be right Coupon. It's just odd that the regulations just say England in brackets. I'll phone the council to check. The parking prankster posted a thread today to say this was a weak defence to run unless the council is taking enforcement action, but I figure I might as well put it in. What do you think? I think I have far better arguments than the planning one anyway, but there seems no harm putting it at the very end of the Skeleton.

I know you are helping on another Millennium one - I looked at Millennium's website today to see if there was anything helpful on there. It is quite swish but not Companies Act compliant because it does not identify that Millennium Group is a trading name (but that has nothing to do with the claim). I really wanted to see how MPS was described. Athough MPS is there (along with Millennium Training, Millennium Event Security, Millennium Door Security etc), it is not described as a "division" (although it is described as that in small lettering on the signage). In fact, it isn't described as anything other than MPS and along with the other areas of the business it is given great prominence on the home page. It has its own area of the website (as do the other areas of the business). If you click on the MPS link it leads you to instructions on how to pay for PCNs you've received - those instructions name MPS as the payee (not MDES or any other entity). Nowhere is it indicated that the only legal entity is MDES. This adds weight to the argument (based on the signage) that MPS is being held out as an entity in its own right, being allowed to sign contracts and issue PCNs and receive payment for them in its own name. There is clearly no MPS-MDEN agreement passing any of the rights/obligations it purports to have under the landholder contract to MDES. There is no suggestion anywhere that MPS is one and the same as MDES. There is therefore arguably no basis under which MDES can claim the rights MPS has under the landowner contract to issue PCNs, nor the rights it has pursuant to the contract it is alleged is created by the signage. Therefore, MDES is clearly the wrong Claimant here - the rights it is trying to enforce against the Defendant are not its rights at all, they are MPS's. Following this through, MPS has no legal personality and therefore had no locus to sign the contract so it is unenforceable and void and no locus to enter into a contract with the driver (even if the signs were sufficient). The latter points are an aside to the claim, all I need to prove is that MDES is the wrong Claimant.

Coupon-mad

What do you think? I think I have far better arguments than the planning one anyway, but there seems no harm putting it at the very end of the Skeleton.

I agree. And the one I wrote that included that, was based on this one which was clearly written by someone who is legally qualified, as it is completely different from any forum defence:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

Therefore, MDES is clearly the wrong Claimant here - the rights it is trying to enforce against the Defendant are not its rights at all, they are MPS's. Following this through, MPS has no legal personality and therefore had no locus to sign the contract so it is unenforceable and void and no locus to enter into a contract with the driver (even if the signs were sufficient). The latter points are an aside to the claim, all I need to prove is that MDES is the wrong Claimant.

Yes, it sounds like a reasoned argument. You will soon see if the Judge prefers certain arguments to others and can move on, or hammer home an argument as suits the hearing. May as well try all angles.

Loadsofchildren123

Thanks for the link, very useful. And a good summary of consumer laws/regulations too.
Out of interest, and following on from last night, I just googled MPS and clicked on the link. It takes you to the same MPS part of Millennium's website. This is what it says:
Payments may be made:

• by telephone on (01792) 342 216 using a credit/ debit card (Visa/ Mastercard/ Switch)
• by post to: MPS Payments (address below) cheques made payable to Millennium Parking Services. Please write the serial number (starting with MPS….) on the reverse of the cheque. MPS Payments PO Box 644 Swansea SA1 9JZ
• by using our new online payment system

Loadsofchildren123

I spoke to the council - those planning Regulations do apply to Wales as well as England. All the links on their planning website lead to the Regulations so this must be correct. It's just a bit curious why the Regulations specifically say England, not England and Wales, but there's no explaining Whitehall - obviously for the person who wrote them Wales is synonymous with England!
I've emailed the council to ask them to confirm that there has been no planning application and no planning consent for the signs, which are "advertisements" under the Regulations. The portal shows no planning application. Coupon Mad you will find the reply useful for your Millennium case so I will post it when I get it.

Loadsofchildren123

council replied confirming no planning consent and invited me to make a formal complaint so I have done. No idea if I'll get any feedback before my final hearing at end of March, but fingers crossed. They are usually quite quick to inspect planning complaints, but don't know how good they are at giving feedback to someone who's complained, especially as I'm not a neighbour who says they are being personally affected by the breach.

Umkomaas

Without wanting to appear pedantic, there won't be planning consent for signs - it would be advertising consent.

Just be careful to use the correct terminology in your complaint to the LA, as any opportunity for them to avoid confrontation with the PPC might just be taken, as the PPC doesn't need planning consent for signage.