Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help

TRNC

Thank you for the advice. I have now sent my WS with evidence in a folder which is numbered and formatted as they request.

If I upload the bundle that Gladstones sent to me up here what details should I omit? Providing it is still useful to upload?

TRNC

Evening - The court date for this case is due next week (15th) and I just wanted to confirm if there was a date that a skeleton argument needed to be sent in? I see a costs schedule it is 24 hrs.

Also, not sure if this is an issue but I posted my defence and never received anything from the court to say they have it? Is this normal?

System

Also, not sure if this is an issue but I posted my defence and never received anything from the court to say they have it? Is this normal?

It's quite normal for them to lose it so take a couple of copies.

It is also quite normal for Gladstones to claim they didn't get it so take proof of posting or a copy of a read receipt to "remind" them.

TRNC

Ok great, will do!

Is it worth putting together a skeleton argument and do they have a date they need to be sent in by?

TRNC

Here are the costs schedule I plan to send, any thoughts are welcome. Loss of earnings have been calculated as £19 x 8hrs.

Ordinary Costs
Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 15/11/2017 – £152
Return mileage from home address to Court (16 miles x £0.45) - £7.20
Parking near Court - £3.60
Sub-total £162.80

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)
12 hours Research, preparation and drafting of documents at rate of £19 per hour - £228
3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour - £57.00
Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £30.00
Sub-total £315.00

£ 477.80 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

TRNC

Skeleton Argument:

PREAMBLE
This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated 15/11/2018
2. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:
(a) Authority to park
(b) No contract
(c) Prominence, illegible terms & confusing signage
(d) Conduct
SUBMISSIONS
3. The Defendant admits that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
4. The Defendant was a visitor of a resident at the location and was not trespassing.
5. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event.
6. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.
7. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

AUTHORITY TO PARK
8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, with permission from a resident at the site.
9. The Claimant has imposed an unreasonable limit of 40 visitors per flat and charges residents for additional parking permits.
10. There is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones, it is unacceptable that residents are expected to have no visitors during this period.
10.1 The expense and onerous process of ordering new visitor parking permits has caused issues of road safety related to problem parking.
11. Point #22 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that “the reason parking regulations came into force was to stop people parking in other peoples bays” – this point is irrelevant as The Claiming parked in a visitor bay.

NO CONTRACT
12. The Claimant has provided no proof of standing. The ‘Landowner Authority Letter’ provided in The Claimants bundle is signed by a property management company, which is not, by definition, the landowner and therefore is no proof The Claimant has standing.
13. The Landowner Authority Letter has no definitions, restrictions, details of contraventions, whether The Claimant can even enforce a permit scheme, start date or end date.
14. The Landowner Authority Letter states that the management agent “require Parking Control Management UK Ltd to operate to the IPC/AOS code of practice” – point 17 of this skeleton argument show that this had not been adhered to.
15. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is avered that there is no agreement from the landowner that bestows any rights to The Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in
16.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case. its own name.

PROMINENCE, ILLEGIBLE TERMS & CONFUSING SIGNAGE
17. The signs at Liberty Rise do not conform to the requirements of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise, as follows:
a. There are no entrance signs at Liberty Rise as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
b. The signs are not all illuminated as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
c. PCM (UK) Limited have no identified themselves as ‘the creditor’ (Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
18. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
19. Point #15 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that the signage has been audied and approved by the IPC, however, there is no proof of this and the failure to conform to the requirements stated above show otherwise.

CONDUCT
20. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
21. The Claimant has refused to supply information of how the sums became due.
22. In point #25 of The Claimaints Witness statement it is said that parking charges according to the IPC “Parking charges must not exceed £100” and also that “Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated." The Claimaint have once again shown they are not adhering to the IPC as the amount being claim (according to the Claim Form issued on 08 June 2018) is £168.88.
23. The Claimant has not made The Defendant fully aware of what they need to defend. The claim is vague and disproportionate to the time court needs to spend on such matters, The Defendant believes the court should use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.

Coupon-mad

audied

should be

audited

and

Practise

should be

Practice

How can you say this - below - if you are an admitted driver (which that skelly says you were)?:

7. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

nosferatu1001

Ordinary costs - you cannot claim more tha na hald days loss of leave or pay, and this is capped at £95 - no more. You will need to take proof to the court (payslip)

Le_Kirk

The Claiming parked in a visitor bay.

Not sure what this is supposed to say!

TRNC

Thanks for the comments, I have edit see below. Any other advise would be much appreciated, not just for the skelly but for the court day too - I have read the newbies thread in what to expect and court reports so hopefully all will be fine. Main points of mine would be the poor signage, not complying with IPC, me having permission from resident, the craziness of 40 permits and having to pay for more, and the fact they have no proven they have permission from the landowner.

PREAMBLE
This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated 15/11/2018
2. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:
(a) Authority to park
(b) No contract
(c) Prominence, illegible terms & confusing signage
(d) Conduct
SUBMISSIONS
3. The Defendant admits that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
4. The Defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as local council or the police.
5. The Defendant was a visitor of a resident at the location and was not trespassing.
6. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event.
7. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.
AUTHORITY TO PARK
8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, with permission from a resident at the site.
9. The Claimant has imposed an unreasonable limit of 40 visitors per flat and charges residents for additional parking permits.
10. There is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones, it is unacceptable that residents are expected to have no visitors during this period.
10.1 The expense and onerous process of ordering new visitor parking permits has caused issues of road safety related to problem parking.
11. Point #22 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that “the reason parking regulations came into force was to stop people parking in other peoples bays” – this point is irrelevant as The Defendant parked in a visitor bay.

NO CONTRACT
12. The Claimant has provided no proof of standing. The ‘Landowner Authority Letter’ provided in The Claimants bundle is signed by a property management company, which is not, by definition, the landowner and therefore is no proof The Claimant has standing.
13. The Landowner Authority Letter has no definitions, restrictions, details of contraventions, whether The Claimant can even enforce a permit scheme, start date or end date.
14. The Landowner Authority Letter states that the management agent “require Parking Control Management UK Ltd to operate to the IPC/AOS code of practice” – point 17 of this skeleton argument show that this had not been adhered to.
15. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is avered that there is no agreement from the landowner that bestows any rights to The Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in
16.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case. its own name.

PROMINENCE, ILLEGIBLE TERMS & CONFUSING SIGNAGE
17. The signs at Liberty Rise do not conform to the requirements of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice, as follows:
a. There are no entrance signs at Liberty Rise as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
b. The signs are not all illuminated as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
c. PCM (UK) Limited have no identified themselves as ‘the creditor’ (Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
18. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
19. Point #15 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that the signage has been audited and approved by the IPC, however, there is no proof of this and the failure to conform to the requirements stated above show otherwise.

CONDUCT
20. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
21. The Claimant has refused to supply information of how the sums became due.
22. In point #25 of The Claimaints Witness statement it is said that parking charges according to the IPC “Parking charges must not exceed £100” and also that “Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated." The Claimaint have once again shown they are not adhering to the IPC as the amount being claim (according to the Claim Form issued on 08 June 2018) is £168.88.
23. The Claimant has not made The Defendant fully aware of what they need to defend. The claim is vague and disproportionate to the time court needs to spend on such matters, The Defendant believes the court should use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.