Gladstones / Millennium claim form

[Deleted User]

My proposal was to write explaining that you will permit them to discontinue if your modest expenses are paid (land registry fees) or you'll seek costs of defending.

The problem with seeking £250 now is that it probably does not form part of a counterclaim advanced by you, so technically there is no requirement to make it. There is, of course, nothing to stop you filing court proceedings later.

wi3347

I'm with you. I will write to them then and make a drop hands offer. I don't want any money from them I just want the whole thing done and dusted. I will draft something up tonight and post it up here for comments / suggestions as per!

wi3347

Thinking of going with this as my drop hands offers.. any suggestions please?

RE: claim xxxxx

To whom it may concern,

Further to my defence which has been received by the courts which I trust you will have been served a copy of by now, I have carried out additional research and discovered the following points which you should relay to your client.

A search of the Swansea city council planning portal shows your client has no planning permission from the Swansea city council for the parking signs at the location. I have reported this to the Swansea city council who inform me they have assigned an investigations officer to the case who will be visiting the site in the coming days, if they haven’t already and will be advising further after this visit. It is an offence under the town and county planning act 1990 to erect advertisement/signage of this nature without permission from the Swansea city council and as a result the signage at the sight is incapable of binding anyone to anything as it appears to be illegal in effect.

Your notice to keeper (NTK) states the contravention was at “metropole chambers, salubrious passage”. It clearly states in the protection of freedoms act that the address must be correctly stated on the NTK as one of the conditions to pass liability to the registered keeper. I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for “metropole chambers” is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle of which I am registered keeper was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, meaning the only way your NTK could be correct and legally binding is if the vehicle was parked inside the actual building which quite clearly it was not. I have contacted the Swansea council highways department who have confirmed for me via email that the salubrious passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore in any case, not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place.

I have copies of my correspondence with the Swansea city councils planning department, highways department and the lard registry documents which I will produce to the court as evidence should your client wish to continue to a hearing.

In light of the above, along with the other points raised in my defence, I believe that this claim has absolutely no realistic prospect of success and I offer your client to withdraw the claim. Should your client choose to discontinue with this claim entirely, as a gesture of goodwill I allow them to discontinue without seeking recovery of my costs thus far. This is a generous offer in light of the overwhelming evidence that this claim shall not be successful for your client and it will save them a lot of money to take this one time offer now.

KeithP

'sight' or 'site'?

Lamilad

I think your letter should be short and blunt. It will be more hard-hitting.

I know it's tempting to write a long 'legal-sounding' letter to 'scare them off' but it can have the opposite effect if you say more than you need to.

The stuff about unauthorised signage is unlikely to cut any mustard, I've never known a judge give two-hoots about this. They'll rebut saying that their signage does form a contract and planning permission would, in any case, have no bearing on this.

I think you're 'reaching' with the PoFA "correct address" stuff. I think they could easily argue they've stated the correct address. It's very possible that, somewhere along the line, they haven't complied with PoFA so I would just tell them that their NTK does not comply do you cannot be held liable as keeper, and you will prove this in court should the matter proceed to a hearing

If the land where the vehicle was parked is indeed 'council owned' then this is without doubt your strongest point, I'd say it's a slam dunk! So I wouldn't water it down by surrounding it with less strong points.

[Deleted User]

+1 Lamilad.

Pithy is the word. If you can't keep it to 1 side of A4 it's far too long.

You don't need superfluous argument. As I recall they are ticketing public highway. Unless they are authorised by the local authority the claim is likely to fail...

Provide them with the copy document showing its public highway, then write in similar terms to the below:

The claimant is invited to withdraw his claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of [ ] days from the date of this letter.

The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claim(s) in connection with the unauthorised ticketing on public highway.

If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.

wi3347

Fair enough laddies and gents, as always i trust your advice, i have altered it to

To whom it may concern,

Further to my defence which has been received by the court I have carried out additional research and discovered the follow which you should relay to your client.

I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “Metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for Metropole chambers is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle that I am registered keeper of was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, on salubrious passage. I have contacted the Swansea council highways department who have confirmed for me via email that the salubrious passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore in any case, not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place.

I have enclosed copies of correspondence with the highways department and the land registry documents with this letter, which I will produce to the court as evidence should your client wish to continue to a hearing.

In light of the above, along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and the claimant is invited to withdraw the claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter.

The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claims in connection with the unauthorised ticketing on public highway.

If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.

Umkomaas

I'd add 'Should the case proceed to a court hearing where I am successful, this clear infringement of the International Parking Community's Code or Practice will be reported to the DVLA with a request that your client is suspended from further access to the registered keeper database'.

Lamilad

I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “Metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for Metropole chambers is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle that I am registered keeper of was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, on salubrious passage.

Don't bother with this it's wishy-washy.

Coupon-mad

I agree, I'd have just gone with Johnersh's words and almost nothing else except this as an intro:

I have contacted the Swansea Council Highways Department who have confirmed for me via email (copy below) that Salubrious Passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place and to attempt to do so is likely to be an offence.

'Council Highways Dept' and Salubrious Passage needs capital initials!