Multiple PCN's when permit displayed

Biggkidd

I emailed the court asking that exact question but haven't heard back yet. By receiving this WS i would assume they will go ahead but i'll confirm that with a phone call.

'As I can see the PPC had a contract with Management Company not with the Landlord, is that right?.'

Exactly my point! I have contacted the RMA to requested a copy of a contract with the Landlord but that never materialised (details on Pg.1)

Common Parts
http://i68.tinypic.com/71phn8.jpg

Biggkidd

IamEmanresu wrote: »

#3 in the contract is your main point of attack.

UKCPM in #3 is putting the onus on whoever signed the contract that the client (KGMS/Trinity) have the authority to employ them.

Is Point 10 in my WS a valid argument to cover this?

IamEmanresu wrote: »

As Sassii says, get that Lease out and check the names and definitions on it. You'll have to go in hard or the judge will accept the paperwork as OK.

I've checked the names on the Lease and no mention of any other party or person. Just the landlord (HA) and myself/partner.

The definition of "Car Parking Spaces" means the car parking space comprising part of the Premises, the Visitors Parking Space and all other car parking spaces on the Estate whether or not included in the demise of any other premises.

"Visitor Parking Space" means the car parking space or spaces comprising of the Estate and shown marked with the letter "U".

This changed to VP once PPM came on site.

"Estate" means the land and buildings at xxx now or formally comprised within the Estate Title number and shown on Plan 1.

Does a DPA breach not count for anything?

System

Is Point 10 in my WS a valid argument to cover this?

Difficult to answer this since you've taken the names off but essentially if the names on the UKCPM contract are the same as the names on your lease then they have the authority to control the site.

Are they the same?

As regards the definitions, it looks like the parking spaces are not common parts so presume that each parking space has a designated "owner/occupier" with exclusive rights and quiet enjoyment. IMHO you'll win on the parked in your own space tickets on primacy of contract / quiet enjoyment.

Where there is some doubt are the visitor spaces which although they don't appear to be "common parts" must be by definition common as they do not appear to belong to once occupier with quiet enjoyment. So the judge may decide the signs/UKCPM rules may apply there.

But .... have a read of SaveMeSomeMoney's court report yesterday on how a judge will conduct a case. There is a step by step process where they put up points and you knock them down and vice versa. So you need to list their points and your knock down.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73740354&postcount=64

You might also anticipate their knocking down your points too. It's all in the preparation but it is not that challenging. It's more "Pub Quiz" than "University Challenge" as the points are fairly simple.

Another point to note and it is a flaw in almost all Gladstones cases is that they put up facsimiles of the signs they say were there. So check the pics you have to see if what they claim was there, was indeed there and that they haven't changed.

And have a go at the lack of a Witness as they won't bring one

And have your costs listed and sent to the other side at least a day before.

Biggkidd

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Difficult to answer this since you've taken the names off but essentially if the names on the UKCPM contract are the same as the names on your lease then they have the authority to control the site.

Are they the same?

No they are not the same. The Lease contains and agreement with the Housing Association. No specific names haven't been formally mentioned anywhere.

System

No they are not the same. The Lease contains and agreement with the Housing Association. No specific names haven't been formally mentioned anywhere.

So if there is uncertainty, the it will be up to the judge to decide on the balance of probabilities. It will be 50/50.

Some judges will decide that as the Claimant can't prove standing then the case fails. But only this week, have seen this go the other way where despite the location being missing from a HA contract, judge decided that Defendant couldn't prove Claimant did not have standing.

So to remove the uncertainty for the judge, a Land Registry report on the location should show the actual owner which sits at the head of the chain of authority. It's a few quid to get but might save you a lot more.

Biggkidd

Talking about land registry, the one quoted within claimants WS differs from the one on my Lease. My land registry number covers the Estate whereas theirs seems to cover only my Plot. I'll request the full detailed register as you mentioned, I cant imagine PPM will be a part of it. A lot of money is at stake so this may prove decisive.

Biggkidd

OK, so i have the landowner registry details from the number quoted in my Lease. The registered owner is my landlord. Is there anything else that i need to look for in this document that may or may not support my case?

I'm now going to start forming my skeleton arguments. My case doesn't bear any similarities to PE vs Beavis or Elliot vs Loake, so I should be able to attack these points. The wording signage being forbidding and containing no actual offer would be another potential angle. Primacy of Contract would hopefully be my main focus as PPM do not have the right to alter the lease, nor do MA. Should i be looking to knock down all the other points individually, how do i ensure get all this across?