Private PCN on residential estate

squire1234

I have just been preparing for the hearing date and going through all the documentation. I wanted to post up a few paragraphs from the Claimant's WS as I do not fully understand them (I did not receive a WS for the case that is due, but I presume it will be identical to the other cases which they did send a WS for):

11. I would also like to point out as a point of interest that paragraph 6 of the Fifth schedule in the relevant Lease states that the Lessee covenants “the right at any time of the Landlord to grant or agree to grant or to procure the grant of easements to Authorities over the Development or any part of parts therefore for the supply fo such services to the Development or any part or parts thereof and this Lease shall take effect subject thereto”. As such, the Landlord agreed to any commencement of a parking enforcement scheme under the Lease as it had the relevant discretion to introduce the same as highlighted above.

12. The lease incorporates for the introduction of the parking scheme, the parking scheme incorporates for the display of a valid permit by way of its terms. This parking scheme is governed by the signage contained on the site, which clearly states that motorists must display a valid permit when using this land. As a resident of the premises it is not accepted that the Defendant was not aware of the terms of parking.

13. The above clearly indicates that my Company had the relevant authority from the Managing Agent of the Land to operate and enforce the parking scheme.

I do not see how the lease agreement quote from paragraph 11) above means that the "Landlord agreed to any commencement of a parking enforcement scheme". I want to make sure I am prepared and understand all parts of their argument, can anyone shed some light on this?

Coupon-mad

Haha, no, you are spot on, and they are trying to fool a dozy Judge into believing that 2 + 2 = 5!
This is a DESPERATE leap!

paragraph 6 of the Fifth schedule in the relevant Lease states that the Lessee covenants:

 “the right at any time of the Landlord to grant or agree to grant or to procure the grant of easements to Authorities over the Development or any part of parts therefore for the supply of such services to the Development or any part or parts thereof and this Lease shall take effect subject thereto”.

'Authorities' (PPCs are not the Authorities)
'supply of services' (i.e. gas pipes, telephone & electrical connections to power the development!)
'the Landlord' (not the Managing Agent then...)

What that witness has said, is utter twaddle!

squire1234

Ugh, I thought I was going crazy because the wording is in confusing legalese. Thanks !

Can I make sure that I am correct in my argument that the sign is forbidding:
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/filedata/fetch?id=1172728

nosferatu1001

DId you complain to the court about the lack of a WS from teh claimant? have you lodged a letter with them stating you were not served with one? Have you checked to see if the court has a copy?

squire1234

I did complain and they sent me the reply that I posted on Jan 26th 2020 (basically saying I need to apply to them formally for further action at a cost of £255, which is an outrageous risk if I don't win - I don't qualify for help with fees).
I have emailed the solicitors and they ignored my request. I can send them a more formal complaint letter today along with my costs schedule, which I have yet to provide.
I was informed over the phone that the court has received a copy.

nosferatu1001

No,o you didnt need to file an Application. Your letter just needs to be ON THE FILE that goes to the judge, as part of YOUR bundle, making it clear the C messed up. 
Send them  a letter, free proof of posting, entitled YOUR CLIENTS BREACH OF COURT ORDER.... And give obvious details re the courts order. 
Give them 3 days to get the bundle to you, otherwise you will oppose any relief from sanction at the hearing on X date, and ask the court to formally exclude the Cs bundle. As they will be unable to prove their claim, they will be unable to win. 

squire1234

I have now done exactly as your advised but as the hearing is on Wednesday (in 2 days), I don't have the option to wait 3 days for them to get the bundle to me. I am preparing for the worst case scenario using the bundle that they sent me for another case, due to be heard next month, with the same cause of action, in the hope that this will be identical in case the Judge asks me to read through their WS on the day or something.

squire1234 said:

Can I make sure that I am correct in my argument that the sign is forbidding:
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/filedata/fetch?id=1172728

Any advice on the above?

nosferatu1001

WEll no, I clearly didnt know youd left it this late to chase it up!
My guess - theyll discontinue. 
No, dont agree to that. State the claimant shoudl not be allowed relief from sanction, and should not be allowed to ambush you. They have BROKEN A COURT ORDER and shold be sanctioned for it - theyre legally represented !!!!!!! 
Does it offer a contract? Yes or No. Its really easy - if it does not offer the clas of driver the driver was that day a contract, ie if it only offers a contract to permit holders and the driver was not a permit holder, then there is no offered contract and so there can be no contract. 

squire1234

I actually posted about this in December and last month and was advised to contact the court for Directions, which I did and they're the ones who sent me the letter below in response.

No, dont agree to that. State the claimant shoudl not be allowed relief from sanction, and should not be allowed to ambush you. They have BROKEN A COURT ORDER and shold be sanctioned for it - theyre legally represented !!!!!!! 

I can do that on the day? Ok advice and point taken, appreciate the help very much.

Does it offer a contract? Yes or No. Its really easy - if it does not offer the clas of driver the driver was that day a contract, ie if it only offers a contract to permit holders and the driver was not a permit holder, then there is no offered contract and so there can be no contract. 

I completely understand this but it's the phrasing in the small print that throws me : "By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms". Am I right in understanding that this is still not an offer of contract?

Coupon-mad

State the claimant shoudl not be allowed relief from sanction, and should not be allowed to ambush you. They have BROKEN A COURT ORDER and should be sanctioned for it - theyre legally represented !!!!!!! 

I can do that on the day?

Yes, your first point as soon as you get in the court room is to tell the Judge that:

- you were not served with any witness statement or evidence for this case at all (DO NOT TAKE THE OTHER ONE)

- you have tried to address this by writing to the court and the Claimant and got nothing, to date

- you have taken a day off work (if true) and feel that the claim should be struck out and not adjourned because you want the case dealt with today as it has ruined your peace of mind for xx months, and this is a legally represented serial Claimant who should know better.  If the entire claim is not struck out for this unreasonable conduct, then their WS and evidence should be entirely disregarded as inadmissible.

By the way, do NOT accept any papers from the rep in the waiting room outside and NO CHAT with them in a side room.  No telling them you didn't get the WS as they will try to put that right and shove a copy at you, ruining your first point (above) and yet giving you no time to read it!

Get to court half an hour early to get through security/bag/pockets check, like in an Airport, grab some water and sign in with the Usher and just politely say 'no thanks' to the rep trying to talk to you, or 'I prefer to discuss this in the courtroom'.

Take a WAGE SLIP and proof of travel/parking costs to attend.

Have you filed and served a COSTS SCHEDULE already, showing your costs in advance, including time at £19 per hour if the Judge agrees the C has acted 'wholly unreasonably'?