Heath Parade NW9 again. NTK received. Ignore or appeal?

Coupon-mad

OK, but the Mediation sentence is normal. Don't take them up on the 'offer'.

mnkut

Hey Keekstuff,
I've PM'd you if you need any support on Heath Parade case in the run up to court date, I'm happy to help!

keekstuff

To those familiar with title deed, I just received the original copies today, but could use some help deciphering them and reconciling them with the online extract.

Online Extract: (not admissible in court)
"...This extract shows information current on 6 APR 2018"
B: Proprietorship Register
Title absolute
1 PROPRIETOR: CHOICES FOR GRAHAME PARK LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 05303074) of Capital House, 25 Chapel Street, London NW1 5DT.


Official Copy:
B: Proprietorship Register
Title absolute
1. (06.04.2018) PROPRIETOR: GENESIS HOUSING ASSOCIATION LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 31241R) of Atelier House, 64, Pratt Street, London NW1 0DL

... does this mean GENESIS only had rights since April 2018? Cheers.

Update - on the title page, it says "The date at the beginning of an entry is the date on which the entry was made in the register." From that, I infer that GENESIS didn't have rights to land until the date.

Also, there's mention of "rights reserved by, but is subject to rights granted by transfer of land edged and numbered AGL337022 on the title plan and other land dated 12 Jan 2015 made between (1) Choices of Grahame Park Limited and (2) Genesis Housing Association Limited."

Although this seems different to what I expected the title deed to say, it throws enough doubt over Genesis being able to grant permission for PCM to issue charges.

Coupon-mad

Online Extract: (not admissible in court)
"...This extract shows information current on 6 APR 2018"
B: Proprietorship Register
Title absolute
1 PROPRIETOR: CHOICES FOR GRAHAME PARK LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 05303074) of Capital House, 25 Chapel Street, London NW1 5DT.


Official Copy:
B: Proprietorship Register
Title absolute
1. (06.04.2018) PROPRIETOR: GENESIS HOUSING ASSOCIATION LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 31241R) of Atelier House, 64, Pratt Street, London NW1 0DL

... does this mean GENESIS only had rights since April 2018?

Yes, but this has been said on other Heath Parade threads, including mnkut's.

keekstuff

@Coupon-mad, thanks for reinforcing my understanding.

Only 2 weeks to go and received Gladstone's witness statement and evidence via e-mail...

Dear XXXX

We act for the claimant in the above matter.

Please find attached, by way of service, the Claimant's Witness Statement

The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9. However on some occasions our Client may wish to attend and will do so.

We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court

It seems quite vague and thought it may be grounds to have the case struck out, but I assume they have another week to confirm to the courts in writing whether or not Claimant will attend.

Coupon-mad

No, that is normal for Gladstones in recent months and they never confirm.

You should mention your objection to this situation at the hearing, as the Claimant's WS was written by a person who has never been to the car park, therefore is hearsay from a person who is not actually a witness at all, and on top of that they have not bothered to turn up to be cross examined on their woeful evidence!

Umkomaas

Their actual claimant won't turn up, but a gun-for-hire advocate might.

keekstuff

We won in court today!

Brief Report:
Claimant didn't turn up. We were the first of 4 or 5 to be seen in a hearing vs PCM UK. Although I had a basic outline in my witness statement, I hadn't prepared a skeleton argument, which would probably have helped create a better narrative, so to begin with, since we were asked why we disputed the claim, I rattled down high level points in our defence an witness statement.

We jumped from point to point, based on where the judge's interest took him. I thought we would have been able to present the evidence on the table, rather than having to verbally describe which exhibit I was referring to.

In the end, the defendant (who was too nervous to appear alone, hence me being there as a lay representative) was asked to speak up...

We prepared for this event. She gave her side of the story (Only parked there for no more than 3 minutes, asked a security guard about whether parking there is ok, came back, saw a photographer taking pictures of her car). Firstly and surprisingly, we weren't challenged to provide evidence. This would've been ok, as the movements matched claimant's eyewitness statement, so we had that as a backup. Secondly. for some reason, despite the judge having had trouble getting his head round the claimant's time stamps and corroborating the short time frame, he was convinced by the defendant's statement.

3 minutes to find out whether to park there or not. To him, this did not constitute parking.

He wasn't as interested in the lack of freeholder, unclear or forbidding signage, or the predatory tactics employed and ignoring grace period. It was simply, you did not park there. I also got a little flustered and fumbled the evidence on the PCM vs Bull case. I quoted a portion that was some ways into the actual paragraph, so thought I marked up the wrong one when the fist sentence didn't match. That's when he wanted to wrap things up (probably feeling a little embarrassed and sorry for me).

So, despite hours and hours of research and preparation late into the night, a few words by my partner and common sense prevailed. Would've been sweeter, if it were based on one of the detailed points, but a win is a win. I'm glad and ever grateful that the people on these boards put so much work into this and previous cases for us to learn from. I felt we were adequately prepared going in. My partner got her costs awarded (the time away one). She was happy and I got my brownie points from her .

beamerguy

You have won your brownie points and you will go to the ball

WELL DONE ......... Gladstones really are a shower, they seem to be behaving like lemmings nowadays.

And for PCM, Gladstones are making them look complete idiots

:beer::beer:

Umkomaas

Well done to both of you.

I'm glad and ever grateful that the people on these boards put so much work into this and previous cases for us to learn from.

You've got far more court experience now than 90%+ of regulars, most of whom have never been anywhere near this business end of a PCN.

A giant monkey off both of your backs!