Help Requested With WS - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd

System

if they are going your way go for the jugular which is what I did on the whole landowner authority thing.

They would too, if it was going their way. Courts are based on the adversarial principle so no need to be nice.

beamerguy

muleskinner

Very well done:T:T

2 hours is a long ordeal and maybe suggests the judge
was not up to speed as to this, this seems like wasting
the courts time over such a trivial matter.

Gladstones scuppered again and the hired mouth Blake
did them no favours which seems par for the course.

PPM .... YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED

Coupon-mad

Brilliant stuff!

Just to pull from your OP the situation for others to see in context what the case was about, because not all of us view this forum in the blue & red garish way that repeats the first post at the top of every page (I certainly don't view the forum that way, nor do several regulars!):

a PCN issued by Parking & Property Management Ltd. PCN issued to my wife so I'm basically fighting this on her behalf.

PCN was issued for five minutes parking in a lay-by opposite a co-op where it had previously been permissible to park for a limited time (20 mins or so) if visiting same. Very poor forbidding signage and absolutely nothing to indicate change of restrictions.

So, is it now time for the registered keeper to report PPM to the IPC and to the DVLA, for ticketing on Council land? This is a case where a court Judge has has held as fact, and their own evidence and the new Council signs all prove, that this PCN was given on land where a Council Traffic order applies.

That's illegal. Go for the jugular with complaints. The IPC will only care, if the DVLA are also copied in. And your MP as well, why not, just for the added oomph?

Loadsofchildren123

Very well done muleskinner, all the hard work was worth it!
You are right on how you play it in court. You run your point and if you can see the judge isnt with you, dont be phased and move on to the next one.
Not all judges will be so dismissive of county court case law. Those cases are persuasive rather than the decisions of higher courts which are binding. But other judges will respect the decisions taken by their brethren.

abeltasman

Thanks Muleskinner. And well done for the win!

muleskinner

beamerguy wrote: »

muleskinner

Very well done:T:T

2 hours is a long ordeal and maybe suggests the judge
was not up to speed as to this, this seems like wasting
the courts time over such a trivial matter.

Gladstones scuppered again and the hired mouth Blake
did them no favours which seems par for the course.

PPM .... YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED

Thanks Beamerguy, I know how you hate the Glastards but this one really wasn't down to them (though it was their templated WS). PPM represented themselves. The somewhat shady David Blake is a senior employee there, he has introduced himself as a Director of the company in other case but he's not listed at Companies House.

I think the length of time of the hearing wasn't due to the judge not being 'up to speed', but simply each party being given time to say their piece.

I guess she could have canned it at the 'landowner authority' stage and left it at that but I was glad to be able to argue the 'forbidding contract' point and see her (and PPMs) response, disappointed not to hear her ruling on it though. She copped out a little there.

muleskinner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Brilliant stuff!
So, is it now time for the registered keeper to report PPM to the IPC and to the DVLA, for ticketing on Council land? This is a case where a court Judge has has held as fact, and their own evidence and the new Council signs all prove, that this PCN was given on land where a Council Traffic order applies.

That's illegal. Go for the jugular with complaints. The IPC will only care, if the DVLA are also copied in. And your MP as well, why not, just for the added oomph?

Hi CM - I am all for going gung-ho on these scumbags but unfortunately things aren't as 'cut and dried' as you suggest.

There was no TRO in place at the time the ticket was issued, it was put in place almost 12 months later. I have that from the Council. This is why I never argued that point in Court but simply included the photo, almost without comment, to demonstrate the complexity of jurisdiction at that site and how important it was for PPM to have their ducks in a row when it came to demonstrating landowner authority. From that point of view it certainly worked!

I am still unsure whether they did have landowner authority over that particular bay and certainly nothing they presented indicated they did. He demonstrated incompetence in court, total ignorance of key issues, and his general flapping about managed to persuade the judge PPM were the type of company who might put a sign up somewhere in error. I suspect the documents that really did it for them though were internal documents handed out to their operatives rather than part of their contract with the landowner.

Do you think it's enough to write to the parties you suggest with the 'evidence' PPM provided and simply say I strongly suspect this company has been ticketing illegally in this bay for approx twelve months, judge agrees, here's the evidence - go investigate...?

nosferatu1001

It still shows it was Council land - they couldnt put a TRO in place otherwise!

muleskinner

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

It still shows it was Council land - they couldnt put a TRO in place otherwise!

I think the bays in question have been adopted by the council when the TRO was put in place, they weren't adopted by the council at the time the ticket was issued.

Like I said , the provenance of this site is really complicated. It's private land according to the land registry and according to the council (i've checked with several departments), yet it still has a council TRO in place since December (across all the bays on the site actually, not just this one).

The roadways are public highway (anyone has free right of passage) yet they are not 'adopted highway' - however they are on a list to be 'adopted highway' at some point in the future.

There are what appear to be two different freeholders, Linden Homes and Pentland Management. Both appear to have jurisdiction over different areas of the site. Figuring out who has jurisdiction over which bit is more or less impossible.

There are also all sort of historical covenants in place, plus it's a conservation area etc etc.

Like I said - extremely complicated!

Coupon-mad

muleskinner wrote: »

Do you think it's enough to write to the parties you suggest with the 'evidence' PPM provided and simply say I strongly suspect this company has been ticketing illegally in this bay for approx twelve months, judge agrees, here's the evidence - go investigate...?

Wouldn't hurt, would it?!