Hearing end of the Month

jackmarak

UPDATE: Claimant discontinued.:beer:

Defence Statement, Witness Statement (Claimant and Defendant), Additional Information (for Defendant Witness Statement) and Skeleton Argument in link below:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khbunp1usys9hwd/AABpibiy1TjxBeNjph1n0mjba?dl=0

Details below:

• Defendant parked on land
• Claimant issued PCN
• Claimant contracted to the tenant on the land to issue tickets
• Claimant did not have a contract with the land owner nor did he convey his responsibilities to the tenant to allow them to contract with the claimant as his agent
• Defendant has a witness statement from land lord confirming no authority given to the claimant to ticket and the defendant has his permission to park

Additional evidence:
Company named in contract supplied by claimant had liquidated 7 months prior to incident.
Contract was already worthless regardless, wasn't signed by the landlord and the landlord had already explained the cowboys had no authority to operate on his land.

But that must have been the icing on the cake. Defendant got the phone call (the desperate last ditch effort to grab money before pulling out) then it was curtains. :dance:

claxtome

I am just checking, not telling you are wrong, that you are at the right part of the process.

Are you saying that:
1) You have submitted a defence to the court after receiving a 'Letter before claim' from the Claimant
2) A court date has been set and you have both received the Claimant's Witness Statement & evidence AND sent in your Witness Statement & evidence to the court
?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

jackmarak

Hi,

Yes sorry that is correct.
The claimant has sent their witness statement as has the defendant.

The date is the end of the month only thing left to do is write the Skeleton and attend!

Fruitcake

jackmarak wrote: »

Hi,

Yes sorry that is correct.
I have received their witness statement and also sent my own.

I have a date at the end of the month, only thing left to do is write my Skeleton and attend!
Thank you for the quick reply.

It's all in there.
https:// www.
dropbox.com/sh/khbunp1us...ph1n0mjba?dl=0[/url]

(Had to break link because I can't post them sorry)

Kind regards,
Jack.

I can't get the link to work. Have you uploaded the image to a web hosting site and pasted the URL here? We normally ask posters to do that but change http to hxxp so we can change it back to a live link.
Of course, there may be nothing wrong with it and it's an error on my part.

Quentin

****EDIT***


Working link:


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khbunp1usys9hwd/AABpibiy1TjxBeNjph1n0mjba?dl=0

nosferatu1001

https:// https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khbunp1us...ph1n0mjba?dl=0

You shoudl also include your cost schedule.
Include a seperate set of costs for unreaosnable, as the C never had authorty to operate there.

Quentin

jackmarak wrote: »

Yeah just noticed, odd that.
I'll figure out at way bare with me sorry

Paste the link correctly but change https to hxxps

jackmarak

I have included a schedule of costs
just not posted it on dropbox but I have referenced it in my witness statement.
Is that link working for you?

Quentin

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khbunp1usys9hwd/AABpibiy1TjxBeNjph1n0mjba?dl=0

jackmarak

Thank you for that!
I've cleaned the thread up a little, got rid of the broken links etc.

So yeah, I'm at the stage of writing a skeleton argument.
I know the IPC Code to refer to that relates to the C not having authority + a signed statement from the landlord backing me up.

So I should be okay there but I have mentioned other arguments i.e not leaving the site/ the C not photographing the area someone was stood. I know this shouldn't matter because they don't legally have the right to enforce restrictions BUT I've been advised to add this to my skeleton to strengthen my case.

Ideally I should be able to walk in, cite the IPC Code and prove they had no authority but I'm somehow worried it won't be enough.