Claim Form - UK Car Park Management

Magnum0121

Also, can anyone show me a copy of the POFA 2012? The government legislation website isn't working.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/4/enacted

Castle

Magnum0121 wrote: »

Also, can anyone show me a copy of the POFA 2012? The government legislation website isn't working.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/4/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Magnum0121

That's the same link that I posted that doesn't work:

This page contains the following errors:

error on line 5 at column 242: EntityRef: expecting ';'
Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.

Coupon-mad

CPM UK LTD (Claimant)

Is that how their name is given on the claim form? I thought it would be UK Car Park Management Ltd as per their company registration:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07383860

You do not need to say this but I know who you mean. I would remove this:

2. I authorise ********* ******** to represent on my behalf in my absence

To the other regulars, it is OK, it's not a lay rep with no RoA. Magnum0121, ask that person for comments on your WS, off forum and do not mention them here.

This is a bit of a mess even having tidied up the Smart Punctuation error you are getting:

6. This Claimant should never have issued to a registered keeper, a document described as a 'liability notice' (LN) because they were not availing themselves of any right to 'keeper liability'. This right is offered under statute to parking operators and landholders, ONLY if they comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, which Excel admit they do not. Under the applicable BPA Code of Practice at the time, a LN was a document only for cases where an operator could hold a keeper liable under the POFA. This LN was contrary to DVLA rules which prohibit misleading keepers as to whether they are the liable party.

For example why does it say 'Excel'? Wrong PPC! And why are you talking about a LN when UKCPM probably did comply and are not ''admitting they do not'' rely on the POFA. the opposite is likely to be true, with UKCPM, they no doubt are relying on the POFA.

Remove that.

Why did you not include any of the linked words I showed you, about the ?Landlord & Tenant Act

You have made no attempt to show ANY evidence at all with this WS, eeek! What about the primacy of contract that the Defendant is relying upon? The proof of that?

You need to ask the person who will be in court about this WS and evidence, or you could ruin the case.

If you are getting assistance I would take it off forum now and let this thread go quiet.

Lamilad

Also, can anyone show me a copy of the POFA 2012? The government legislation website isn't working.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dxxrwu5thz6wdo/TAB%203%20Exhibit%20IL1%20PoFA%202012%20Sch%204.pdf?dl=0

Magnum0121

Update on this case - case dismissed in favour of the defendant.

I'll give a brief rundown of events.
The defendant decided to attend court with a legally qualified representative.

The claimant informed the defendant a week prior to the hearing that they would not be sending someone to represent themselves and wished for judge to view their case on paper alone. Despite this, they decided to send someone last minute from Elms Legal. This was either a tactic to make the defendant not bother to attend to catch them out, or poor organisation.

The claimants witness statement was rubbish, it was just a copy and pasted template probably used in all residential cases and didn't address the issue of the lease.

The DJ was only concerned with the lease, which grants the defendant permission to park. The claimants representative mentioned clause 21 of schedule 3 which said that Managing Agents could introduce regulations for the benefit of the efficient running of the estate. This was not included in the bundle that Gladstones threw together, so the Judge was not interested.
On this point, the defendants representative mentioned that any variation of the lease has to be approved by 75% of the leaseholders, persuant to s37 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1987. Again, there was no evidence of this in the claimants bundle.

Unfortunately the defendant did not take proof of earnings. If she did then she could've claimed for loss of earnings which would have been the maximum of £95 plus the £3 bus fare. The claimant has been ordered to pay the £3 bus fare.
Let this be a lesson to anyone attending court, take a pay slip with you just in case.

The whole thing was over within 10 minutes.

Coupon-mad

Glad to see this update and well done to you and bargepole! :T

He did report this to some of us already. I was hoping you'd update the thread. Bargepole summarised it thus:

Case No. D4GF99EJ - UKCPM -v- Miss x, before District Judge Dodsworth at Romford Court.

Mrs Cross (Elms Legal) for Claimant.I prepared the WS, highlighting the key arguments of primacy of contract of the lease, and appending judgments from Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson, as well as forbidding signage as per Bull and Masterson.

The Claimant's WS, signed by Sophie Fenn, was the usual Gladstones template, and didn't even address the issue of the lease.

The DJ's opening remarks were ''Mrs Cross, you may have some difficulty with this. The Defendant has a lease which grants her a right to park. I will hear any submission you wish to make on whether that term has been varied''.

Mrs Cross took the Judge to clause 21 of Schedule 3, which said that the Managing Agents could introduce regulations for the benefit of the efficient running of the estate. But when asked if she had a copy of such regulations, she did not. As she said afterwards, you're only as good as your bundle.

I understand a transcript is being obtained? Will be useful for your other case and for other residential cases if the Parking Prankster is happy to host it in his case law pages, once you are happy to release it.