Gladstones - Technical defence against PCM

Ezisola

Congratulations. It would really help others if you could post a copy of your final submitted WS/Skeleton defence.

DoaM

Did the judge award any additional costs for the claimant's unreasonable behaviour?

Fruitcake

Now fire off a complaint to the DVLA that the scammers had no right to get your personal data as a judge has ruled they didn't have a contract to operate there.
You might also wish to consider a DPA claim. You have six years to do this.

Please also complain to your MP.

nosferatu1001

I woudl also compalin to trading standards, that a company has used EXCEPTIONALLY aggressive and misleading business practices to puruse you to court over an area they have no contract to operate on.

Kas22

Ezisola wrote: »

Congratulations. It would really help others if you could post a copy of your final submitted WS/Skeleton defence.

Apologies for the delayed response, and Happy New Year!

Below was my final WS... please take note that the judge didn't refer to any of my points made on it, so am not sure if he read it or not as we talked it through using the photos etc.

Hope this helps.

In the County Court at LOCATION
Claim No. XXXXXXX
Between
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)
And
Kas22 (Defendant)

Witness Statement

I am the defendant in this matter, [NAME] of [ADDRESS].
Attached to this statement are photographic documents in appendix one: marked as ‘ref: p(no./letter)’ to which I will refer.
I will say as follows:
The car park is a residential car park used by the residents of the block of flats on the XXXXX development. I have lived on the development since it was first built 17 years ago. The Claimants first introduction to the site was on [DATE].
Living in a freehold dwelling we were allowed to park freely on the site, but never parked in the car park as it was allocated for the flats.
There was a communal bike shed that was located on the outskirts of the parking perimeter and in several places around the development. In [DATE] all the bike sheds were removed, and the unmarked area was routinely used by residents to park their cars, without penalty and with no issues.
The title deeds state that the rights granted for the benefit of the property are:
“The property transferred with the benefit of the following rights so far as the same are exercisable over that part of the Estate now or formerly owned by the Transferor:

1. Of way as necessary to give access to and from the nearest public highway over and along the Adoptable Roads

2. to the extent reasonably necessary for the purpose of domestic use and convenience incidental to the occupation of the Property to use the vehicular and pedestrian access ways within the Communal Areas and Facilities and any Accessways and Private Shared Footpaths as necessary for access to and egress from the Property (including the Garage or Parking Space (as the case may be) ) and to use any other parts of the Communal Areas and Facilities not laid out as access ways for the purpose for which the same were reasonably intended”

Similar to the case of Moncrieff v Jamieson (2007), where a right of vehicular access from a public road included a right to park on the servient tenement such vehicles as were reasonably incidental to the enjoyment of access to the dominant tenement.

The area where the bike shed used to be does not form part of the car park over which the Claimant is authorised to operate.
When the Claimant first came into force in [DATE}, freehold owners where not made aware of the inception of the parking control and the Managing Agents failed to consider the existing rights and easements enjoyed by residents and failed to pay regards to the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. I am a freehold owner, and I put this Claimant to strict proof that they/the Managing Agent obtained from the leasehold owners, 75% consensus agreement to vary their leases and impose a third party parking firm to ride roughshod over everyones primacy of contract. This did not happen. No-one was consulted and the parking regime lasted mere months before the level of complaints from residents, forced them out.
Following a residential vote, the parking control was removed on [DATE}. (ref: p5)

Other points
1. On [DATE], I parked my vehicle in a space that was outside of the designated parking area (ref: p1), which was formerly used as a communal bike shed (ref: p2.a, p2.b).
2. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking as where the vehicle was parked did not form part of the car park.
3. No promise was made to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside of the normal conditions as there was no offer or acceptance.
4. Numerous vehicles have been using this space to park for a number of years (ref: p3.a-f) without any disruption to residents or the car park.
5. Parking in this space is understood by residents to be an easement due to established use over the years.
6. The Claimants signage was not clearly visible as it had been positioned on a fence running alongside the car park in a non-lit blind spot that couldn’t be seen upon entering the car park.
i) The International Parking Committee states in their guide that under Part E, Schedule 1;
Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist.
And
If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.
i) The vehicle was parked without knowledge that parking restrictions were in force
ii) Only after the issue of the ticket, the Claimants signage was found.
7. The Claimants signage only stipulated terms and conditions for parking “wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display”,
(ref: p4). As the area was not part of the designated parking, it had no bay markings, and therefore no breach had occurred.
i) In the case of ParkingEye Limited Vs Beavis
The imposition of a concealed 'pitfall or trap' of a notorious, aggressively litigious PPC and 'penalties' interferes with my rights of way and right to pass/re-pass (and park), with reference from the judgement:

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
8. The Claimants signage did not highlight any restricted areas around the parking control boundaries
9. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.
10. After sending a Letter Before Claim to the Claimant, my points were disregarded and received a generic response without any clarification on the points raised (ref: p6).
11. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.
12. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature

Date

Kas22

DoaM wrote: »

Did the judge award any additional costs for the claimant's unreasonable behaviour?

No, only the maximum daily rate for loss of earnings (£95.00) and mileage.

Fruitcake wrote: »

Now fire off a complaint to the DVLA that the scammers had no right to get your personal data as a judge has ruled they didn't have a contract to operate there.
You might also wish to consider a DPA claim. You have six years to do this.

Are there any sites where I can get a template/form to fill this out?

Kas22

Hi all, so the judge ordered that PCM pay costs by the 31st December 2018, but I haven't received anything yet.

Is there anything I can do, or just have to wait?

nosferatu1001

Warrant of control
Think MCOL helps you fill it out. Small fee to the court, gets added to their bill.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75255468#Comment_75255468

Do the same as that person!



:T

Kas22

This morning I received a letter from Gladstones with a cheque enclosed for the sum the judge had issued.

A month later than it was supposed to arrive, but it came :-).