Please put me out of my misery...

mlang88

Thank you so much, this is incredibly useful information. I am just typing up my skeleton argument now in order that it is submitted within 24 hours.

Something that I have just noticed on the Parking Enforcement Agreement supplied by Gladstones (I think in order to prove that they have Locus Standi) is the following:

a. “Parking Enforcement

Any vehicle otherwise in accordance with the below may be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as indicated by the signage provided by the operator.

(A) Vehicles fully displaying a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or…
(C)__Vehicles fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen…

I had a pay and display ticket in my windscreen. Their signage, however, doesn't say 'or' it says below it 'in addition to the above'.

My question is - is this a discrepancy I could exploit? Or is it irrelevant if the signage says different?

Coupon-mad

mlang88 wrote: »

Something that I have just noticed on the Parking Enforcement Agreement supplied by Gladstones (I think in order to prove that they have Locus Standi) is the following:

a. “Parking Enforcement

Any vehicle otherwise in accordance with the below may be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as indicated by the signage provided by the operator.

(A) Vehicles fully displaying a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or…
(C)__Vehicles fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen…

I had a pay and display ticket in my windscreen.

Their signage, however, doesn't say 'or' it says below it 'in addition to the above'.

My question is - is this a discrepancy I could exploit? Or is it irrelevant if the signage says different?

I would say that might be a silver bullet.

It goes into your skeleton argument immediately! The signs can't say something different than the landowner authorised and intended to be the restriction to be applied. You can argue they had no 'legitimate interest' or lawful excuse to make up rules that were never intended by the landowner, and appear to operating outside of their remit to say the least, and cannot issue charges for conduct that doesn't actually contravene the intended rules.

A relevant analogy would be: on street, a car driver cannot 'contravene' a Council SIGN to get a (real) PCN, it can only be held to have contravened a Traffic Order (i.e. the rules set behind the scenes). If the signs are not correct then no PCN is enforceable, because (with a real PCN) you can only contravene an Order - i.e. the agreed intention of the scheme.

You can't actually contravene a sign, which is meant to be just that - a genuine signpost as to the rules. This is not. Now there is a difference because this is private land/contract law, but the effect is basically the same:

- On street, traffic signs inform the motorist of TRO restrictions and conditions.

- On private land, parking signs are to inform the motorist of the landowner's terms & conditions.

mlang88

I felt like it was 'too good to be true' for about 2 hours last night, as they supplied me with that information themselves!

It goes on to say something on permits - saying 'the operator will provide parking permits in favour of the landlord at any given time' but that is the only mention of permits. I may be wrong, but I think my argument still stands (partly because I don't think I understand what they are saying here - I take it to mean that if requested, the landlord can request a permit for the car park? Seems ridiculous...)

Hopefully I have a really solid argument which refutes their claims, I feel as though I will be able to go into the session tomorrow with real confidence. I will write up how the day goes if that will be of any benefit, good or bad.

mlang88

Hi guys, just a quick one by way of update.

Here outside the hearing rooms In Manchester. Pretty nervous. I've seen SIP have 5 hearings booked in today for 14:00. I've noted that, like other users who have followed similar advice, I feel pretty good wearing a suit as all others in this waiting area are in pretty casual attire. (One guy came in with a jacket potato in a takeaway box!)

I'm more nervous about my defence being thrown out due to the late submittal of my witness statement. I've been to check, and it's with the rest of the papers for consideration so i'll wait and see what is decided. I've brought copies of my witness statement, defence, all exhibits I wish to rely on (including Beavis transcripts and POFA). I have something else (as per my previous posts) that I would like to rely on in court (parking enforcement agreement), however, it has already been supplied as evidence by the claimant so not sure if I need to submit or not. They, I think, intend to state that this agreement does not matter. However, as this concerns a matter of contract I'd submit that it is entirely relevant.

Anyway, just waffling there. I'll post an update in a few hours!

System

Gladstones have "lost" two already today in S East so add to their misery.

mlang88

Hi guys, just been released from court...slight anti-climax to the day.

So I think I have written up the 'emotional' experience of the day above. This might be a bit more about what actually happened. Basically, the five defendants (myself included) were all taken into one court room, together with the representative of the client (Mr D Probert of SIP Parking).

We were told that the cases would be adjourned for two main reasons. The first was that there is an ongoing ruling that the judge (Mr Ayre) was in the process of deciding - a case between SIP and a landowner somewhere I believe. He didn't tell us what exactly that dispute involved, but if it found in favour of the landowner then all of the cases that SIP had brought to court were to be thrown out. If it found in favour of SIP, some may have to be thrown out still, but the majority will have to be heard later in the year.

The second, was that he wanted to give us all a fair hearing. He expressed his disappointment that we had all been booked on the same hearing at the same time. He gave us all a brief moment to outline our arguments, to judge whether or not these cases were pretty simple or not. I outlined mine first, talking about the landowner agreement which SIP were at odds with, and ambiguous language of the signage. He mulled it over briefly, before saying that the agreement in place there is a tricky one - he would have to understand who exactly the agreement involved, as there are sometimes three parties involved (Can't remember the third as he was speaking quickly, but he mentioned landowner, tenant and a third). So he said it would require a deeper discussion. Another guy next to me seemed to have a rather less compelling argument, as Mr Probert (from SIP) picked his out to state that he had parked in a permit only space and and his only defence of ''But I bought a ticket'' was immediately shot down by the judge. In any case, they were ALL adjourned.

I actually remember speaking with Mr. Probert on three occasions, and I am relishing the opportunity to duel with him in court as he is a greasy, poorly-suited man who I'd like to embarrass in court.

I do have a question to tag onto this - the judge said "I recognise that you have all taken time off work today to be here, and I thank you. I understand that you might not wish to do this again, therefore you have the opportunity to have your case heard 'on the papers''. Is there a reason why I shouldn't do this? I'm not sure I have the holidays to take this off, is my only concern.

I'd also like to know whether or not I'd have time to submit a better witness statement? As mine was rushed, and not nearly as strong as my original defence or skeleton argument.

EDIT - 'Time to enter a better witness statement' meaning actually, would I have chance to.

Thanks for all your help to date - wouldn't have gotten here without you all. Sorry for the long post/spam in the run up to this!

Loadsofchildren123

Don't have it heard on the papers

mlang88

Don't have it heard on the papers

Is there an actual reason for this though? Won't it just be the exact same information that I would be talking through on the day?

safarmuk

Is there an actual reason for this though? Won't it just be the exact same information that I would be talking through on the day?

No, because anything in the Claimants papers could be taken or assumed as correct and if the case is "heard on the papers" you therefore would not have the chance to rebut or refute or disprove anything they had written to the DJ in person on the day

System

Has this been rescheduled?