Gladstones / Millennium claim form

Loadsofchildren123

Salubrious Passage...... yes indeed, my friend once stepped over a couple there, in flagrante, at around midnight and paused to ask the young lady if she was aware of what she was doing (and was told in no uncertain terms that she was and where to go).

Loadsofchildren123

wi3347 wrote: »

Ladies and gents i think we may have a winner,

The Land registry comes back to show the owners are - METROPOLE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Co. Regn. No.6674242) of Metropole Chambers, Salubrious Passage, Swansea SA1 3RT.
And the lender is a Swedish company: Svenska Handelsbanken AB (publ)

Now heres the good bit. I got the plans of the location from the LR as well and it shows that the area that Millennium have erected their signs are not within the boundary line! only the building it self is, not the outside area where they have put up signs on the outside of the building. As far as i can tell this is public land! so the owners of the building wouldn't of had the authority to give them "permission" to enforce parking, even if their is a contract between them.

Thats my understanding of it, thoughts?

Interesting. It seems to have nothing to do with Millennium.
Phone Highways Dept at the council to see if it's public highway and if it isn't ask them what its status is. If it's public highway get this confirmed in writing, and confirm with the council that they haven't authorised Millennium to operate there.


If it isn't public highway then it must be privately owned - you may have to do another LR search of the actual passageway to see who owns it if it isn't public highway. Another £3 but you can claim these costs back if you win.


Millennium may of course have leased the passageway where the car parking is, from whoever does own it. So finding out ownership is only step one in the process.


This is Millennium's case and they have to prove it. With their WS they will probably produce a copy of the landowner contract or the lease (they did in mine and others I know of) - but you should be pressurising them to produce it now because this is the sort of information they should have produced at the start. But if you can then throw doubt over who owns the land, they should have to satisfy the judge that they do have valid authority, and you will have muddied the waters.


Judges are entitled to make findings of fact - if there is any uncertainty, some will side with Millennium and make a finding they did have authority, others will say they haven't proved it and will find they didn't - and that is what we all refer to as DJ Bingo

wi3347

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Salubrious Passage...... yes indeed, my friend once stepped over a couple there, in flagrante, at around midnight and paused to ask the young lady if she was aware of what she was doing (and was told in no uncertain terms that she was and where to go).

Standard Salubrious Passage for you my friend!

wi3347

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Interesting. It seems to have nothing to do with Millennium.
Phone Highways Dept at the council to see if it's public highway and if it isn't ask them what its status is. If it's public highway get this confirmed in writing, and confirm with the council that they haven't authorised Millennium to operate there.


If it isn't public highway then it must be privately owned - you may have to do another LR search of the actual passageway to see who owns it if it isn't public highway. Another £3 but you can claim these costs back if you win.


Millennium may of course have leased the passageway where the car parking is, from whoever does own it. So finding out ownership is only step one in the process.


This is Millennium's case and they have to prove it. With their WS they will probably produce a copy of the landowner contract or the lease (they did in mine and others I know of) - but you should be pressurising them to produce it now because this is the sort of information they should have produced at the start. But if you can then throw doubt over who owns the land, they should have to satisfy the judge that they do have valid authority, and you will have muddied the waters.


Judges are entitled to make findings of fact - if there is any uncertainty, some will side with Millennium and make a finding they did have authority, others will say they haven't proved it and will find they didn't - and that is what we all refer to as DJ Bingo

Ive emailed the highways department, will update when they reply. If they say its a public high way it will be in writing via the email. If its not i will do another LR check.

I received an email from the planning part of the council saying my enquiry has been assigned to an officer who will visit the site etc etc so will update when i hear back from there too!

Absolutely agree on the judge bingo. As with my other thread, the judge said that a letter produced with no address on it from the land owners to excel was enough to prove they have authority to enforce parking. The letter could of applied to anywhere in the known universe. I also think I could of produced a NASA recording of me walking on the moon the day the PCN was issued and id have still lost!

wi3347

I've also been thinking,
The notice to keeper gives the address at "metropole chambers, salubrious passage, Swansea"

The Land registry map clearly shows that the area where the ticket was issued is not within the boundary of metropole chambers. So even if it turns out millennium do have authority to enforce parking on the little bit of concrete outside, as the address given on the NTK is "metropole chambers" doesn't this mean the NTK is not POFA compliant and therefore cannot be relied on as "address of contravention" is one of the first things required to mean RK liability can apply?

Loadsofchildren123

Not sure. It could be taken to mean the bit of land adjacent to Metropole Chambers. I don't think it's enough to say the NtK is not compliant. You should shove this in along with your other defences though.
Perhaps write to the person who owns/runs the company to ask them if they engage Millennium to manage parking outside their building (from memory it's a Lucy Wiley who is sole Director and shareholder - if you go onto Companies House website you can look up this information for free). They might not bother to reply, but nothing lost by that and it's worth a go.

wi3347

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Not sure. It could be taken to mean the bit of land adjacent to Metropole Chambers. I don't think it's enough to say the NtK is not compliant. You should shove this in along with your other defences though.
Perhaps write to the person who owns/runs the company to ask them if they engage Millennium to manage parking outside their building (from memory it's a Lucy Wiley who is sole Director and shareholder - if you go onto Companies House website you can look up this information for free). They might not bother to reply, but nothing lost by that and it's worth a go.

I've had a reply from the council now saying salubrious passage is "an adopted highway and maintained by the Swansea city council"

That coupled with the lack of planning permission for their signage and the LR map showing the boundary of metropole chambers is the building alone and not the area outside must surely mean they haven't got the proper authority to enforce parking there reckons this observer

[Deleted User]

Ok, so it was private land, but is now council land. Usually adoption is only possible when roads are new. It may therefore have been public land for some time.

Looks like a decent documented basis to ask the claimant to withdraw, provided you are comfortable the car was on council land.

Time to write to them "without prejudice save as to costs" providing the print out. You could offer to settle if they pay your disbursement costs (i.e. the land registry fees) and, if they fail to do so, to put them on notice that you'll seek unreasonable costs. At conclusion of trial, assuming you are successful, this is a tool to support your request for the enhanced costs.

wi3347

Ok, so write directly to millennium, rather than gladstones? With a copy of the LR map and the email chain from the council. State it's public land, no realistic prospect of success etc and offer to settle the claim?

Coupon-mad

''offer to settle'' as in (not YOU offering some money!). Make it clear and make the offer time-bound.

As Johnersh suggests, this could be a 'drop hands offer' (no money either way) if you'd like it all over - or ask THEM for say £250 settlement, or you will pursue a DPA breach claim for misappropriation of your private DVLA data* without any 'reasonable cause', contrary to the DVLA KADOE rules.

so write directly to millennium, rather than gladstones?

No, everything goes to Gladstones. When we say 'them' we mean their solicitors.



* if the DVLA data was obtained - postal PCN or NTK served?