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

Loadsofchildren123

Is there anyone on here who is familiar with this site?
I've been today to take proper photos.
I have found where the car was parked, which I could identify from the photos.
The site is a large residential development with houses and several blocks of flats. All the signage in the part of the site where the car was parked (by one of the blocks of flats) has been removed. You can clearly see where signs used to be. The photographs produced by Millennium show where the signs were, and you can see, for example, spots of glue where they've been removed from walls, and an unfaded patch on a fence where a sign used to be (this is particularly important as it is where the car was parked as can be seen in the photos).
Signs are still present elsewhere on the site.


Anyone out there have any idea why the signs have been removed?


I'm not sure this is of any relevance to me - the signs are shown to have been there on the date of the parking event. I'm just curious.

twhitehousescat

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who is familiar with this site?
I've been today to take proper photos.
I have found where the car was parked, which I could identify from the photos.
The site is a large residential development with houses and several blocks of flats. All the signage in the part of the site where the car was parked (by one of the blocks of flats) has been removed. You can clearly see where signs used to be. The photographs produced by Millennium show where the signs were, and you can see, for example, spots of glue where they've been removed from walls, and an unfaded patch on a fence where a sign used to be (this is particularly important as it is where the car was parked as can be seen in the photos).
Signs are still present elsewhere on the site.


Anyone out there have any idea why the signs have been removed?


I'm not sure this is of any relevance to me - the signs are shown to have been there on the date of the parking event. I'm just curious.

parking Cos tell lies , WHERE they there on the day?

Coupon-mad

[so they are not entitled to use the roundel BPA sign which they are currently displaying on the sign at the entrance to the site - not much help to me other than to demonstrate their disregard for following the proper processes]

I think it is of help to a defendant. Their misleading display of the BPA roundel and the facts that:

- the website (get a dated screenshot) says they are 'accredited' by the BPA now, which they are not, and

- they have produced as 'evidence' false information showing a sign carrying accreditation from the IPC, yet on that date they CANNOT have had signs up using the IPC logo, absolutely cannot possibly have been true, these MUST be different, later signs...

...means you can also add to defence, breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) which specifically ban businesses from displaying any form of trust mark, quality mark or equivalent if they are not authorised to do so. It is also a breach of the Regulations to provide false or deceptive information.

Read this:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/good-practice/membership-logos-and-claims-of-approval

HTH

twhitehousescat

a child been annoying you today CM , your knife work is excellent

Coupon-mad

twhitehousescat wrote: »

a child been annoying you today CM , your knife work is excellent

It is half term, only my cats at home annoying me!

Loadsofchildren123

Thank you both.
Another bit of homework for me then CM!!!!


I think the signs were there Cat: they've produced a photo of the car with the sign in the background (unless the photograph is doctored which I don't have any evidence of). There is a fence behind the car on which you can see a sign (although you can't actually read what it says as the photo is low resolution). Part of my defence is putting them to full proof of what that sign actually said.
I've driven round the site and found the fence (not many fences on this site so not hard to find), and there is now an unfaded patch of fence where the sign used to be. The other two signs that were on the fence are still there (a private please don't park here sign and a fire assembly point sign). I'm sure it's the same location.
I'm happy to have added another string to my bow regarding the fact that the sign they claim was there can't have been.
I'll have to put this all in the Skeleton - or do I need to amend the Defence again do you think?


On a procedural point, I need the court's leave to amend the defence. I haven't issued a formal application, which would cost £255. Instead, I've asked the court to give permission of its own volition, under its inherent case management powers (reference my previous posts). But the court has ignored the whole thing.
Am I OK do you think turning up on the day and asking for permission, or must I apply because I haven't heard anything? Because the keeper didn't know what the claim was, he filed a simple holding defence merely saying he wasn't the driver. His amended defence is much more detailed since details of the claim were given in the witness statement.
Keeper is loathe to spend £255 on a completely unnecessary application, even if he will get the costs back in the end.

Loadsofchildren123

My post #80 - do you know which case this was? I think it was said in Beavis. It might be obiter (part of judges comment, rather than a ruling on a point of the case) but it's still authority.

Coupon-mad

I'll have to put this all in the Skeleton - or do I need to amend the Defence again do you think?

Into the skeleton argument. You can't 'amend the defence', except by paying a large court fee, but a skeleton builds on it and adds the exhibits (evidence) to support it.

And yes, the fact that ATA CoP was held to be 'regulation/regulatory framework' was said in the Beavis case:

96. ''As at April 2013, there was only one relevant accredited trade association,
the BPA, to which reference was made on the Notice, and to which ParkingEye still
belongs. The BPA Code of Practice is a detailed code of regulation governing signs,
charges and enforcement procedures.''

111. ''And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.''

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

HTH

Loadsofchildren123

I am dancing a jig of great joy and delight.


I have spent £3 on a Land Registry search to see who the landowner is. Gladstones had refused to say (after I sent a CPR Pt 18 Request).


Hey presto, the landowner is NOT the party who signed the parking contract with MPS. It is a Guernsey company called Adriatic Land 2 Limited. It is not Barratt (who developed the site) or BDW South Wales Ltd (the Barratt subsidiary company who signed the parking contract).


Perhaps this might explain why signage on that particular part of the site has been removed. Because MPS had no right to put it there in the first place. And also why Gladstones are dodging my questions.


The Copper Quarter site has dozens of title numbers, I haven't searched the others, just the title number of the block of flats where I have identified the car was parked (by using the photographs and hunting on the ground - Gladstones unhelpfully refused to identify on a plan where the car was parked, again a Part 18 Request).


I am very worried by Prankster's latest report (VCS v Hedley) as it seems to go against all previous decisions. What do others think? Was he relying on the Fairlie case in making a finding of agency?

twhitehousescat

that judge was puddled , in his opinion

Driver is agent of the keeper?

Well that's the hire car industry !!!!!!ed then!