1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued

System

Is that the only pic in the bundle? Doesn't exactly convey the idea of clear and unambiguous signs. See LOC's arguments in #3.

Did they also put in a facsimile of the the sign they claim was there on the day?

And have you checked the name and directors of the people they say signed the contract.

Gladstones haven't a clue if ESP are lying or not - plausible deniability as seen in ParkingEye v Somerfield. So you have to check all ESP have included as the WS is just a template which "interprets" the evidence.

Too late for a SAR now but not too late to check locations of signs and ownership/occupation. Your local council for example can confirm who pays the non-domestic rates (occupation), whether the signs had planning permission and importantly whether the site had permission to be run as a car park and to whom that permission was given.

Looks like ESP are going to be Gladstoned unless there is something else in there.

You might want to get a huge list of costs and send it to ESP saying they can either drop the case or you will be asking for costs.

[Deleted User]

It'll almost certainly run month to month, terminable on notice. You are correct, though: we don't KNOW that from what is provided. Similarly, the contract refers to terms and schedules overleaf that may be relevant.

This contract is better than many. By permitting ES to become creditor that also permits them to sue you directly - note that the contract appears limited to pofa though, which may limit their total charges to be claimed.

It is the status of the signatories that are unclear. If the landowner is a Ltd company rather than a private individual I suspect that there will be inadequate information for this to have formed a binding contract.

Obviously the best argument remains in connection with the land delineation and meaningless photo. If you get a map of the site and colour in the entire edge, you can send it in so that you can do a search of the index map (SIM) at the land registry. That in turn will tell you the boundaries and title numbers. For a small additional fee you can get the owner info. Best of all, the land registry are really helpful by phone and the searches quite quick. The total costs should be less than £15 and will be recoverable as a defence cost if you win.

Note that ES Parking contracted that they would take 4 photos as a minimum. The court should be invited to infer that the failure to include more photos is because it will show (a) that you did display a ticket and (b) that there was other signage that you did comply with.

Umkomaas

Looks like ESP are going to be Gladstoned

They've already been 'Trevored'.

Owd Trev Whitehouse seems to provide the 'brainpower' for ESPEL. Says much about the rest of them!

claxtome

Thanks for your prompt responses.

I will quote what people have asked/mentioned with answers/comments:

Is that the only pic in the bundle? Doesn't exactly convey the idea of clear and unambiguous signs. See LOC's arguments in #3.

There were 4 other pictures but only of the car. No more signage shots.

Did they also put in a facsimile of the the sign they claim was there on the day?

I assume you mean a specimen sign. Yes they did. I have this in my evidence (link in header post) but probably best to include in their evidence doc as well though - will do this today.

Too late for a SAR now but not too late to check locations of signs and ownership/occupation. Your local council for example can confirm who pays the non-domestic rates (occupation), whether the signs had planning permission and importantly whether the site had permission to be run as a car park and to whom that permission was given.

I agree a check of signage against diagram they sent is a good idea - will do soon.
I know the landowner and on the day they had a contract for signage (though has lapsed this year) and have permission to use as a car park. (Council helped with this).

You might want to get a huge list of costs and send it to ESP saying they can either drop the case or you will be asking for costs.

I think that is a good idea.

It is the status of the signatories that are unclear. If the landowner is a Ltd company rather than a private individual I suspect that there will be inadequate information for this to have formed a binding contract.

The landowner is Iliad, a big property development company, and is a Ltd company. Interested to know what other people think if contract has inadequate information to have formed a binding contract.

Obviously the best argument remains in connection with the land delineation. If you get a map of the site and colour in the entire edge, you can send it in so that you can do a search of the index map (SIM) at the land registry. That in turn will tell you the boundaries and title numbers. For a small additional fee you can get the owner info. Best of all, the land registry are really helpful by phone and the searches quite quick. The total costs should be less than £15 and will be recoverable as a defence cost if you win.

The council have helped identified planing permission rights. Which led me to find landowner. Think your suggestion is still good though as means of a backup. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

claxtome wrote: »

Would a SAR to landowner or PPC be useful to see the terms and conditions OR contract extension?

Just to add to all the good advice already given, beware of helping them paper over the cracks.

If evidence gaps are there, note them and exploit them at the hearing, don't look to join the dots for the Claimant.

claxtome

Update (Remember covering post has links to Dropbox where evidence can be viewed)

1) I have checked the signs on site against the signs shown in the diagram in the Claimant's evidence and is near enough correct. (Remember their diagram is wrong as it also shows the council owned land as well as the area managed by the PPC)

2) The FOI Request to council produced some interesting info ->
i) The council owned area of land in 2011 allowed private parking companies to manage the parking there. Sometime between then and 3 weeks before date in question ESPEL took over parking management of this area and rest of car park.

ii) 3 weeks before day in question the council took back control of parking management of their land.

iii) The boundary fence was supposedly erected soon after but council did not say a specific date. I know it wasn't complete before the day in question. I was surprised the council can't tell me when it was finished though :-(

iv) Council don't know why the rubble was put there or why near the boundary stopping people from travelling between 2 areas.

The last 2 points iii) and iv) are frustrating answers to my FOI request.
Any suggestions for follow up questions/plan of attack for council as felt like appealing the answer?
(Surely they must know when the fence was erected)

Starting to prepare my skeleton argument and will post a draft in the next week or so...

[Deleted User]

Rubbish (III) and (IV) are the best possible answers you could have.

A// It demonstrates that the council were aware of the need to separate their land, but on balance (taking into account your w/s) had not done so at the material time.

B// it demonstrates (a rebuttable presumption that you should advance) that the PPC were aware of a parking issue where cars were straying from one parking zone into another and therefore erected a physical barrier to prevent this.

If A and/or B are recognised by the court it follows that this is tacit recognition of the misleading nature of the signage which showed conflicting terms.

It will be for the PPC to prove that you saw their sign and that it was sufficiently clear to form a contract. If as seems likely they will also fail to address these points, I think you'll be able to show that they have failed on balance to prove their case.

nosferatu1001

As above. As ever excellent analysis by Jonersh.
Confusion benefits you here, not the claimant!

claxtome

Still preparing my skeleton argument.

Wanted to know what I can claim in court.
From what I have read from the sticky the following is allowed->

(These first 2 if the Claimant or Solicitor behave inappropriately or discontinue.)
1) Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£19 per hour,
6 hours. Total £114

2) Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage
Estimate £25.

These are allowed if I win->
1) One day off work to attend hearing @£23 per hour X 5 hours
£115

2) Mileage driven to attend court and return
18.8 miles @ £0.45 per mile
£8.46

3) Car parking on day of hearing
£5

4) Land registry search fee
£4

Total costs claimed £132.46 (without the extra costs).


Is there anything I have not included or wrong with this?

Note: I am intending to send a cost schedule to Claimant saying I will ask for these costs unless they discontinue.

Umkomaas

Time off work, loss of earnings is capped @ £95. You'll need to take proof of earnings levels to show the Judge.

There's no guarantee that you will receive anything, even if you win, some judges in the past have dismissed any costs (very surprising, but all part of the Judge Bingo game!).

Some take a bit of a knife to the cost schedule and do a bit of 'pruning' - with the research and preparation time @ £19ph often taking the brunt.