Do I have a valid defence?

Umkomaas

The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC)

You undermine your 'research' by reciting old and now incorrect information. The name quoted no longer has any connection with Gladstones, the IAS or any Private Parking Company.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10507363

The ATA is now the International Parking Community - since 2016.

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/international-parking-community/

Coupon-mad

I would remove 8, 9, 10 and 11 and concentrate on writing a defence about the PPC, not Gladstones.

Oscar_UK

Thanks Umkomaas, I've removed that. I must admit that my "research" consisted solely of trawling through this forum.


Thanks Coupon mad, I've removed those paragraphs too.


I now have one week left to send this off and I'm feeling much more confident thanks to you guys and everyone else on the forum.

Coupon-mad

I must admit that my "research" consisted solely of trawling through this forum.

That's good enough, IMHO!

Oscar_UK

Hi All
I recieved the Claimants witness statement today I've put it here, would anyone like to pick it to pieces
https://www.filehosting.org/file/details/755625/Claimants redacted WS.pdf
Cheers
Oscar

Umkomaas

would anyone like to pick it to pieces

Are you having a go first? It is after all your case.

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to open anything that requires me to provide my email address and tick Agreement boxes. Host it on Dropbox, imurg, tinypics (or similar).

Coupon-mad

Oscar_UK wrote: »

Hi All
I recieved the Claimants witness statement today I've put it here, would anyone like to pick it to pieces
https://www.filehosting.org/file/details/755625/Claimants redacted WS.pdf
Cheers
Oscar

What about your WS? As usual, we need to see your draft WS to help you at this stage.

How long have you got to file/serve it and your evidence?

Oscar_UK

Hi Coupon-mad,


I haven't done my WS yet. I know I've been very lapse. I have till the 16th to get it out.


Umcomaas - I only recieved it yesterday. I am picking out some things but not being an expert I want to be confident on what I am arguing against I can see for instance they are infering that I was the driver and citing Elliot V Loake 1983, I have a reply to that.


The site plan is from a time after this PCN was issued. Extra signs have been added. I have photographic evidence of the new sign and the evidence is also in the Claimants WS.


#16 They quote Vine V London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000 Where "sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place" I believe these were inadequate and insuficiant and the Claimant has also recognised this as they have since erected more and in more prominant areas.


#17 "The defendant was offered use of the land" There is no offer on the sign. I would cite PCMUK vs Bull et al, also would UPV v Masterton help here


#18 Alder V Moore (1961) is this relevant and is it covered by PCMUK vs Bull et al


#19 this is different from the Parking Eye case as there was clear consideration given to both side in the offer of 2 hours free parking. Here there is no such offer.


#20 the contractual licence refered to is not mentioned on the sign therefore cannot be part of any contract ( Am I correct in this?)


#21 As no contract has been established this can only be percieved as a penelty which is unenforcable by the claimant


#22 As no licence is mentioned on the sign it cannot form part of "the contract" there is no offer made and therefore no contract.


#23 This case is different from parking eye V Beavis in that in that case there was a clear and distinct offer made to the driver of 2 hours free parking, in this case there was no such offer or consideration therefore there can be no contract


#24 as above.


#25 I need a bit of help with this one I'm not sure what it is saying


#26 I wasn't sure where I was going with this consumer rights act I need help with this one too.


#27 I want to mention here the parlementry debate re the parking bill and the fact this company was mentioned along with the words scam and robo claims etc


#28 is the extra £60 for damages or for additional charges? it looks to have been just bolted on should I enquire what damages?




Am I going in the right direction any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Oscar_UK

Just a thought but as there were no signs at the entrance to the private land, contrary to schedule 1 of the IPC, and the fact that their contract with the Freeholder states "we will require PCM UK Ltd to operate to the IPC code of practice. Have they Breached thier own contract and invalidated thier right to issue tickets on the freeholders behalf?

KeithP

Oscar_UK wrote: »

Just a thought but as there were no signs at the entrance to the private land, contrary to schedule 1 of the IPC, and the fact that their contract with the Freeholder states "we will require PCM UK Ltd to operate to the IPC code of practice. Have they Breached thier own contract and invalidated thier right to issue tickets on the freeholders behalf?

Yes, and by not complying with the IPC CoP they have also broken their KADOE agreement with the DVLA, which means they have wrongly obtained keeper details from the DVLA:

A6. Membership of an Accredited Trade Association

A6.1. The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.