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

Umkomaas

Virtually the same scam as Heath Parade. Do a Google search on ‘Parking Prankster Heath Parade’ and it will bring up loads of PP blogs about this particular scam, and give you plenty of ideas for defending this.

muleskinner

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Oh well, worth a shot. Who owns that layby then? Has the PPC got proper landowner authority?

I think it must be owned by a company called Pentland Management who manage the whole development on that site. I don't know if the PPC has proper authority, I have asked for this but they have refused to supply anything claiming 'client confidentiality'. Presumably they will have to supply something before going to court otherwise they could be any joker putting up a sign!

Umkomaas wrote: »

Virtually the same scam as Heath Parade. Do a Google search on ‘Parking Prankster Heath Parade’ and it will bring up loads of PP blogs about this particular scam, and give you plenty of ideas for defending this.

Wow - you're right. It's an almost identical situation down to the 'loading bay' type sign and the guy waiting round the corner ready to pounce! Thanks!

In the comments below that link someone says this - 'If someone is physically on site they are meant to ask you to move to mitigate any loss or parking charge'. Is this correct and is there a legal basis for this? I have read through the IPC code of practice(!) and don't remember anything to this effect.

Loadsofchildren123

There is a case that says that, off the top of my head not sure which one it is. One of the other regulars will know. Parking Prankster's blog contains two lists of case law which you could go through to find it as well.


In that other case the driver parked, and left the site having had a chat with the attendant on his way out, and the t&cs said that drivers were to remain on the site. The court said the attendant should have said something - duty to mitigate loss etc. But the driver was able to say that the attendant had definitely seen him which you may not be able to do.

Loadsofchildren123

That old chestnut - commercial confidentiality. What a load of tosh.


Write to them and say that the duty is on them to prove their case and they cannot hide behind confidentiality to avoid showing that they have locus standi to bring the claim. Even if there are parts of the contract which are commercially sensitive, this simply cannot apply to the entire document. Offer an undertaking not to show the contract to a third party or discuss it with any third party, not to copy it save for any court bundle/documents, and to return all copies in your possession straight after the matter is concluded. When they don't reply, chase them for an answer. Idiots.

muleskinner

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

In that other case the driver parked, and left the site having had a chat with the attendant on his way out, and the t&cs said that drivers were to remain on the site. The court said the attendant should have said something - duty to mitigate loss etc. But the driver was able to say that the attendant had definitely seen him which you may not be able to do.

The attendant would have seen me (aka my wife) as I was in the shop for less than five minutes before he slapped the PCN on my vehicle. I can't prove it but he must have been hiding around a corner when I pulled up. The timings on the PCN claim I was there for seven minutes but I was talking to him for at least two minutes before he slapped the PCN on and took the photos. Come to think of it, no photos have been provided showing me parked at the start of the period in question so they could well be exaggerating the length of time I was there anyway.

muleskinner

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

In that other case the driver parked, and left the site having had a chat with the attendant on his way out, and the t&cs said that drivers were to remain on the site. The court said the attendant should have said something - duty to mitigate loss etc. But the driver was able to say that the attendant had definitely seen him which you may not be able to do.

The only transcript I've been able to find similar to this is VCS vs Ibbotsen in which the judge castigates the PPC for this reason. It's not the reason the case gets struck out though, that's due to an inadequate contract with the landowner.

It's a fascinating and hilarious read regardless, the PPC get a real bollocking!

Loadsofchildren123

I think Ibbotson is the one I was thinking of

muleskinner

Also that case was pre-Beavis I believe, post-Beavis the 'charge' no longer has to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss so does 'mitigation of loss' really apply anymore?

Loadsofchildren123

I'd have to read the case again, I just remembered the bit about the attendant watching the driver walk off site and saying nothing. You can use it as "obiter" - this is judicial comment which is not part of the actual judgment


I think the duty to mitigate loss applies in every case, including where the penalty rule is disengaged. Worth arguing even if it's rejected. It's pretty shoddy behaviour and entrapment.


I think you should find out who owns the land. It might not be that managing company, which may simply manage it (although they may have authority to bring in third parties such as PPCs). You can find out by getting the Official Copy Register Entries and Title Plan from Land Registry. They are very helpful if you phone them. They cost £3 each, these would be costs you'd be entitled to claim back.


You definitely need to ask them for evidence of landowner authority.


If you are defending as keeper, has POFA been complied with (you may already have answered this, sorry if you have)?

muleskinner

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

If you are defending as keeper, has POFA been complied with (you may already have answered this, sorry if you have)?

I'm defending as driver. I will see if I can find out the other info - thanks!