Gladstone Claim Form with a twist

Coupon-mad

coynek wrote: »

I have a Court date set for July and a few months ago found out from my Housing Association that there is no contract between UKCPM and the Managing Agent who appointed them, it was referred to as a "ghost contract" is this grounds for it to be thrown out before the Court date?

Not thrown out before court, but yes, at the hearing.

Or maybe UKCPM will give up when they see your WS and evidence in advance, showing this evidence. Have you got that in writing yet? what do they mean by a ghost contract, get that clarified by email and that goes into your evidence for WS stage.

coynek

My property manager sent me an email with certain parts from the managing agent cut out one being the "ghost contract" part which was defined as not in writing. I have just requested to have this included.
Just to recap My HA own several properties on the estate, not the car park.
The car park is Managed by Ringleys who appoingted UKCPM and the PCN which was not actually issued was for my own bay.

I have found this exert from the title plans (not official copy, of which I will request)
The Transfer dated 3 October 2006 referred to above grants
the exclusive use of the car parking spaces edged and numbered 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6 in blue on the title plan.
My bay is in the space numbered 6 on the title plans.
Does this make my HA the Landowner or Hold any weight in this case?
Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

I have found this exert from the title plans (not official copy, of which I will request)
The Transfer dated 3 October 2006 referred to above grants
the exclusive use of the car parking spaces edged and numbered 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6 in blue on the title plan.
My bay is in the space numbered 6 on the title plans.
Does this make my HA the Landowner or Hold any weight in this case?

Who does it grant exclusive use to, whoever Ringleys work for (landowner)?

coynek

It grants exclusive use to my Housing Association, who are not the landowner of the car park which is what they have told me in the past (possibly meaning the whole car park in general) but as I read this they have exclusive use of that bay and the landowner of the car park has appointed Ringleys to manage the estate, who have appointed UKCPM.

Coupon-mad

So the HA do own the car park then?

coynek

they have small sections clearly defined in the title plans one.
Do you think an LBA to them for breach of tenancy agreement by allowing Ringleys / CPM to impose conditions on my bay is a direct breach of multiple sections set out in my tenancy, may be enough to get them to try and persuade CPM to drop the current case or even follow through with?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply

Coupon-mad

Maybe, but only if you are prepared to see it through with a claim, and to set put a cause of action against the HA in the claim.

coynek

I have received the witness statement from Gladstones Employee and one of their points is that there attached images show a PCN was attached to the windscreen, their images clearly show there is nothing in the windscreen other than a note from me to them warning them not to issue the PCN.
Can I reference their witness statement in mine? Also they have produced a contract appointing them to manage and issue fines in the Car Park with the Freeholder being ticked by Ringleys the appointing company yet the registered owner on the Land Registry Document is not Ringleys, my understanding was that Ringleys are a Managing Agent, does the Land Reg document show they do not have the authority to sign this contract or can the Landowner and Freeholder be different, still allowing them to have authority, or state that no proof of Ringleys being the Freeholder and or Landowner has been provided.
Thanks Guys

coynek

Is this ok as a witness statement,

I plan to has broadly the same Skeleton argument as I feel they are 3 points that are in my favour and my Defence was longer than needed



The propriety in question is a flat, of which I am a Tenant, with an Assured Shorthand Tenancy Agreement (Relevant Pages Attached, the full document contains personal data and will be brought to the Hearing). The terms of the tenancy entitle me to the use of a designated parking space (H64) associated with the flat. There is no requirement within this contact to contractually engage with any private parking company or to display any permit in my vehicle.

1.2 Section 1.6 of the Tenancy Agreement explicitly denies the right of any third party to enforce any condition contained within this contract should a permit scheme have even been included.


2. The Claimant has claimed that they have been appointed by the Landowner yet failed to produce any evidence to this effect.

2.1 Included in this pack is two Land Registry title plans K915695 (along with a Drawing Plan showing the parking space in question labelled 6 and in Blue) as well as K353029, both of which cover the whole estate and in it’s entirety fail to mention the Claimant’s alleged Landowner disproving their alleged Authority to operate and their alleged authority to enforce charges.

3. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence that The Defendant was the driver of the Vehicle. The Defendant does not longer own the vehicle in question or hold any documents regarding who the driver may have been several years ago. It is understood that the Claimant is pursuing the Registered Keeper citing Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.
A full copy of the Schedule 4 POFA Act 2012 is attached.

3.1The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act by not issuing a Notice To Driver as Claimed, a claim repeatedly proven to be false by their own images. The Relevant time period for issuing a Notice to Keeper when no Notice to Driver is stated in Section 9(5) as 14 Days . Not 33 as carried out by the Claimant.
3.2 Therefore the Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions set out in POFA 2012 second condition as stated in Section 6, (1), (a) & (b).