Gemini, Gladstones, SCC, Hospital car parks

AntrimMark

WS submitted on time and served on the other side solicitors by post and email.
How long should I wait for their witness statement before I complain to court?

[Deleted User]

Two options - 1 is to complain. The other (more nuclear) optionis to lodge an application without notice (£100) seeking an Order without a hearing that:

1. UNLESS the Defendant do serve a witness statement as directed by the Order of District Judge XXX by [date in 14 days] they be debarred from relying on any evidence in support of their claim other than the Particulars of Claim.

2. The Claimant do have permission to apply to Court to set aside or vary this Order within 7 days of service

3. Defendant's costs of the application in any event.

That will, trust me, elicit a response. Another (more nuclear still - full meltdown) approach would be to seek that the Defendant is debarred from relying on any witness evidence as they are in breach of the Order. That would require a hearing (an application fee of £255) and is possibly less likely to be ordered, but certainly it could succeed.

AntrimMark

Just got home and their WS has come in the post.

Helpfully, all the signs they have included are of a completely different site! 😀
Unfortunately, some of my evidence is photos of their signs. 😐

From the photos they sent of the vehicle, its impossible to identify the location the vehicle is parked in.

They've not made it clear whether they are pursuing driver or keeper.

Their "contract" is a letter from them to the landowner, signatures are illegible.

I'll scan their full witness statement and post it in the morning.

Coupon-mad

Helpfully, all the signs they have included are of a completely different site! ��

Hilarious!

From the photos they sent of the vehicle, its impossible to identify the location the vehicle is parked in.

Even better, and if they can't decide - having provided the wrong signs - then even if your evidence does show a sign then you were only responding to the location the particulars talked about. But who is to say which of the two places this is about, in fact?

They've not made it clear whether they are pursuing driver or keeper.

Their "contract" is a letter from them to the landowner, signatures are illegible.

Even better! And no doubt Gladstones have gone on about the irrelevant footballer insurance policy case of Alder v Moore that Johnersh has recently written a response for, and the person who signed the WS has no personal knowledge of the signs (whichever location) and nor will they turn up at the hearing.

A highly amusing mess, as usual!

AntrimMark

Signed by Jason Martin of North London, I doubt he'll make an appearance in Stockport...
He mentions:
Elliot v Loake
Beavis
Vine v Watltham Forest (good luck proving adequate signage)
and VCS v HM Customs
but not Alder v Moore
Industry standard charges
Sufficent PoC points

His exhibits are:
The Agreement authorising management (signed by a name I can't read with no mention of that persons authority or position)
The Sign (a template- good luck showing the judge where on the site it was loacated)
The Site Plan (no plan included)
Notices ??? Presumably he means the NTK's without proof of posting
Photographs (showing signs on different premises and a close up of the vehicle)

I'll post it up tomorrow.... Should I redact it in case they read this thread?

Also, can the claimant use evidence from my witness statement? For example, they mention PoFA but have only quoted one line. I have included the full section in my pack. They can't use Elliot v Loake to support keeper liability, but could they use my PoFA evidence instead?

Coupon-mad

POFA should be discussed by both sides at the hearing but I would not worry about it, you sound well prepped. I would redact the WS so your name, VRN and claim number are not shown.

[Deleted User]

please post the entire statement as redacted when you have a chance. It sounds as though a statement has been lodged based on a template without the exhibits (all of which should have been signed as complete and correct and verified with a statement of truth).

I would object in the strongest possible terms to reliance on the statement if that proves to be the case.

AntrimMark

Here's a link to their WS in dropbox. I've already started filling in some arguments (in purple text).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5bf9jap62ivvke5/Gladstone%20WS.docx?dl=0

Here are their supporting documents.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cgysw342lnqtn2x/Gladstone%20Photos%2C%20Signs%20and%20Notices.pdf?dl=0

I think what I want to do now is send them a drop hands offer.
I've seen a post with a template but am struggling to re-locate it.
Can anyone provide a link? Thanks

Coupon-mad

The contract says it will 'automatically terminate' if not renewed. No evidence of renewal in the bundle?

It also says that PCNs MUST be placed on the windscreen of vehicles, and later it says the company can only pursue drivers where a PCN has been so issued.

And the contract says that claims will only be pursued 'on your behalf' (i.e. Gemini acting on behalf of the trust on an agency basis only). Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency. If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue, never mind what the later letter said, you can argue that Gemini have no more right to sue in their own name than APCOA did at this Hospital:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/apcoa-case-struck-out.html

24/4/14 3YQ53901 APCOA Parking v Hull Kingston, DJ Smart
OP cited dropped APCOA cases APCOA were paid contractors and no more.
She (the poster, Molly) paid to strike out:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83479
APCOA wanted £700 but ended up paying Molly £200!

And same here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83241

Gemini (unlike ParkingEye in the Beavis case) are agents with no standing, all they do is share income from PCNs the trust actually issue, and in this case there is no evidence the Trust even issued PCNs. There is nothing that I saw in the contract saying that Gemini had the right to issue postal PCNs instead, and bypass the windscreen PCN requirement (that remained in the gift of the Trust, the principal).

Looks like Gemini are paid merely to put signs up and do the back office work in chasing charges 'on behalf of' the trust. Does it read that the £4899 is a payment made to Gemini?

Castle

Reading through the "contract" there's no mention of the income from the pay and display machines; probably because it all goes to the Trust.