Urgent advice kindly requested - County Claim (Gladstone Solicitors)

muleskinner

Umkomaas wrote: »

Never assume anything. You need written confirmation to be I can’t see P&PM pulling out (unless there’s been a glaring foul-up by them somewhere along the way) - they have become one of the most litigation-happy PPCs in the country over the past 12 months.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Parking_and_Property_Management.html

More than one hearing a day - for a small company that's insane. Sad thing is, it must be making them money to keep at it.

nosferatu1001

Dont assume anything

Check with the court, to see if THEY have a copy of the claimants pack. if you dont have it either, then make sure the court is aware of this - email or letter I would suggest. State that this is unreasonable behaviour by the claimant, as they have a professional firm representing them, and that as you have not seen any documetns (if true) you are seriously disadvantaged byt heir BREACH of the courts order.

Kamran

Turns out they sent some stuff home in the nick of time

nosferatu1001

OK, so what does it say?

It wont be "new" to us, and shouldnt be new to you either - they have generic templates, that are usually riddled with errors etc. For example (i cant recall) if you are defending as Keeper, with no ide3ntified driver, then they probably assert that the "Defendant" (D) breached the car park terms and conditions on such and such a date - well, no, a driver MAY have, but they cannot sasume that was the D. Well, theyll likely try to claim Elliot vs Loake lets them do this, but you know from your research that that is COMPLETE rubbish!

Kamran

Hi all,

I've read through their witness statement and reviewed their documents. Seems extremely generic. For example it acknowledges that i was given a permit, when in fact I wasn't. Seem to try and cover all bases quickly rather than make reference to the actual situation.

I've attached their brief witness statement below:

https://drive.google.com/a/pwc.com/file/d/1S2oJo4tMi1qOPXLCWNVn4y06DFQ-EvD3/view?usp=drive_web

Thanks again!

Castle

Kamran wrote: »

Hi all,

I've read through their witness statement and reviewed their documents. Seems extremely generic. For example it acknowledges that i was given a permit, when in fact I wasn't. Seem to try and cover all bases quickly rather than make reference to the actual situation.

1) Is there a copy of the "permit" in their evidence?

2) Paragraph 15 of their Witness Statement is false: Lord Roch made no such statement, (see post 113 onwards):-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5695908

(If you go to post 68 of the above court case you'll see that the witness statement is virtually identical to yours. despite the fact it's a different company and a different witness).

Kamran

Castle wrote: »

1) Is there a copy of the "permit" in their evidence?

2) Paragraph 15 of their Witness Statement is false: Lord Roch made no such statement, (see post 113 onwards):-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5695908

(If you go to post 68 of the above court case you'll see that the witness statement is virtually identical to yours. despite the fact it's a different company and a different witness).

Nope, no copy of permit, presumably because there isn't one. I'm not a resident there and hence I never had one!

Coupon-mad

OK so show us your blow by blow demolition of that false WS.

muleskinner

Loads of that is the exactly the same as the WS in my case - it's a cut and paste job.

Vine vs Waltham is taken out of context - that was won by the motorist (on the grounds that they didn't see the signs and therefore could not be bound by the terms on them). They're trying the same thing on with me.

Kamran

Hi all, here's my attempt at picking apart their WS. My case is Friday morning.

I’m not sure which order these are supposed to go in – whether I’ll be asked direct questions, whether I’ll be given the time to say my piece, or whether I have to listen to their side before responding, but I’ll structure this on the basis that the judge is going to look at their witness statement and then ask me questions accordingly:

1. Firstly I would like to state that upon reviewing the claimant’s witness statement and supporting documents that it appears to be a copy-paste situation by the claimant where very little reference has been given to my case in particular. There are several points made in the witness statement that appear, to me, to be completely irrelevant – I will come to these in due course.

2. The claimant states in point 4 of the witness statement that they rely on ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015, but have not included a transcript of this case. I have brought a copy with me and a copy for the benefit of the court. The claimant states that the case shows that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the Ts & Cs set out on a sign. This is not disputed but is not the issue in this case – the crux of the matter is around inadequate signage that invalidates the claimant’s argument that a contract was formed.

3. The claimant states in point 5 that the signs on the land are clear and unambiguous, which is laughable and I strongly disagree. The claimant is a member of the International Parking Community and by doing so agree to adhere to their standards. I refer the court to appendix 5 which is an example of a good sign according to the IPC, which demonstrates a legible font and size, very little clutter and a giant “P” to indicate that the notice refers to parking. I would then refer the court to Appendix 2 which shows the signage visible from ground level. The court can see that the sign is placed up high on a wall, with a tiny font size to the point that looking at this photograph, I can’t read what’s being said. This is another example as to why I deny that a contract was formed.

4. I refer the court to Appendix 4, the IPC code of practice which states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

5. Furthermore, the £100 charge, which to me is a crucial element of a potential contract, is hidden away amongst small text, barely being visible on the scanned copy, let alone from ground level looking up at the sign placed high up on a side wall.

6. I’m not quite sure what points 6, 7. 8 and 9 are referring to in the claimant’s witness statement. See below for a picture of what these points read***

7. In point 12 of their witness statement, the claimant states that they “do not dispute the defendant was issued with a permit” and also that “the defendant was aware of the terms when they obtained a permit”. This is an example of what I was referring to earlier when I said that the witness statement by the defence has been copy paste with little regard to the matter at hand. I am not a resident at the property and therefore clearly would never have received any permits for the land. I would ask the court to call upon the claimant to provide evidence that a permit had been issued to me.

8. The claimant states in point 13 that “the defendant has not provided any evidence to support their alleged right to park”. If the court could review appendix 2 – photographs taken by myself of the site, it is clear to me that without clear and adequate signage, the area looks to be land available for the public to park, free from any parking restrictions.

9. In points 14 and 15, the claimant rejects any argument that the sign was not visible and has enclosed a site plan of the sign locations. I would refer the court to appendix 2 once again, which shows photographs of the site, both at the entrance and inside, which demonstrate a lack of signage.

10. Furthermore, I refer the court to appendix 3, which is a video taken by myself and is a driver’s point of view inside a vehicle when entering the site and parking in the same spot. I’m happy to play this to you on the ipad I have brought with me. The video shows no clearly visible signage at all, and therefore I deny that any contract was ever in place. It is evident to me that the signage on site does not meet the International Parking Community (IPC) code of practice [Appendix 4] which states that “Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist”

11. I refer the court to the IPC code of practice once again which states that “It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge”

12. Points 16 and 17 talks about their rights to enforce parking charges (not sure there's anything I have to say about this)

13. Point 18 talks about £100 being neither extravagant nor unconscionable (not sure there's anything I have to say about this)

14. Point 19 talks about adherence to civil procedure rules (not sure there's anything I have to say about this)

15. They then attach an agreement between the freeholder and PPM with point 3 referring to their entitlement to recover unpaid charges (not sure there's anything I have to say about this)

16. They then display a scan of their small font signage

17. They then attach a poor bird’s eye, google maps view of signage without clear road labels

Actions:
• What do I physically need to do before now and the court case?
• Print 2 copies and read Beavis case
• Put the video on the ipad and make sure the ipad is charged
• Re-read and better understand the cases referenced in my own witness statement, specifically, Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest.

Thank you very much everybody!

***Here are points 6-9 that i'm not sure what they're getting at.