Hw close does a parking sign need to be?

Le_Kirk

Just don't miss the deadline.

Coupon-mad

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

Really, can you deny? I am just checking. You would be amazed how many people just copy that when they know they were actually driving.

Your defence at a quick glance looks a bit old, I can tell that due to how long & waffly it is and with lots of confusing numbering and sub-numbers.

That is not a defence like those you will find from August, on any claim thread.

1505grandad

Just checking - is "defendant" supposed to be in between paras 4 & 5?

StClements

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Really, can you deny? I am just checking. You would be amazed how many people just copy that when they know they were actually driving.

To be honest, it was so long ago, I can't remember who was driving, most probably the wife.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your defence at a quick glance looks a bit old, I can tell that due to how long & waffly it is and with lots of confusing numbering and sub-numbers.

That is not a defence like those you will find from August, on any claim thread.

I've based it off Johnersh' 'own space' (on the sticky for newbies) argument and added the 'abuse of process' Le_kirk helpfully pointed me to, assuming both are still current?

StClements

1505grandad wrote: »

Just checking - is "defendant" supposed to be in between paras 4 & 5?

Ahh! annoying stray little S*#T!, no idea how it snuck in, just going to have to accept it now i suppose, i've got confirmation my email has been received. Thanks for letting me know still.

StClements

*Update* my case has finally been allocate to the small claims track, for feb.

I have been looking at recent cases on this forum and it seems to me that the Becks7 has a very similar 'own space' dispute to mine in progress so I intend to draft my defense using many of the relevant points in hers.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6028333

There are a few facts I would like to share with the members on this forum hopefully for a bit of advice:

My leasehold speaks of a specific easement for the lessee and lessee's visitors to 'the peaceful enjoyment' of parking in any of he sites parking spaces.

I was enjoying this easement peacefully until the point the landlord decided to completely remove this easement by prohibiting parking on the site at which point it employed the dastardly UKCPM to start ticketing the residents' cars.

When I complained to the landlord, they told me the parking spots have not released yet and will be when the site is completed (its a fairly big development and some of the blocks are yet to be finished).

The leasehold mentions the easements come into effect as soon as the lease property is occupied.

Landlord responded, i'm paraphrasing 'we don't give an eff, will not release parking spaces until site is finished'.

Curiously (actually vexing) the landlord has issued permits to the the workers of the building firm to park their private vehicles on the site.

I consider (I hope and believe correctly) the Landlord in this matter is 'derogating from its grant' and they are not simply able to willy nilly decide to no longer honour the easements in the lease.

On a separate occasions a spiteful UKCPM ticketer tried to deliberately run me over in his car (thankfully I managed to dive out of the way, the incident is video recorded and police are investigating) because I was recording him trespassing on my lease, can this also be used as evidence in my parking ticket case?

*Other non standard points specific to this incident*

The car was not parked in a parking bay

Bafflingly UKCPM had previously emailed to tell a resident, we are fine to park, no mention of need to display a permit.

No permits where ever issued to me or other residents

Coupon-mad

On a separate occasions a spiteful UKCPM ticketer tried to deliberately run me over in his car (thankfully I managed to dive out of the way, the incident is video recorded and police are investigating) because I was recording him trespassing on my lease, can this also be used as evidence in my parking ticket case?

*Other non standard points specific to this incident*

The car was not parked in a parking bay

Bafflingly UKCPM had previously emailed to tell a resident, we are fine to park, no mention of need to display a permit.

No permits where ever issued to me or other residents

Use ALL if the above and supply the video (USB stick with the paper file to the court and claimant) and crime number.

And, you need to read loads of other UKCPM threads ahead of you, and this one is a great place to start:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6017649&page=3

As are all the other UKCPM ones you find when searching 'Jack Chapman'. you will be amazed what you can include, and please send the SRA a copy of their WS when you get it, with a complaint like all the others.

StClements

Appreciate the quick response and direction as always CM

StClements

*update*
Defence WS filed. Claimant WS received from one Jack Chapman. 
The Postcode does match up with the address, same photocopied signature issue previously reported. However more interestingly:
1. He refers to me by some other name as the 'Defendent' and and the wrong gender (Mrs) 
2. Refers to a car I've never driven or owned
3. Refers to the place of the parking incident I'm pretty sure neither myself or my car have ever visited in their entire existence 
In short poor UKCPM appear to have attached the wrong WS intended for a different case. The evidence they've submitted however relates to the correct incident. 

However on the alleged contract they signed with the 'proprietor', it states "This agreement shall relate to the following site [correct site named]" but then "applicable parking restrictions - NO PARKING AT ANYTIME".

The main thrust of my defence is that I been granted the explicit rights to park on the site in lieu of my leasehold agreement and it isn't within the gift of the 'proprietor' (Site Management Company) to give this away to UKCPM. However I think it was interesting that the claimant is looking to issue parking charges when the dubious contract they allegedly agreed (missing signatures) has forbidding language in relation to parking. Did want to know, do the parking gurus on this site think I can use this point to further evidence how baseless the claim is and hopefully increase my chances of claim for damages (should the Judge side with me)? 

nosferatu1001

Sounds like you need to point out that the WS, signed under a statement of truth by "Jack Chapman", is clearly a fabrication. It relates to another claim entirely, and no person actually signing this would have made such a gross error. Point them to the OTHER issues with template WS clearly NOT written by the person that claims to have written it. 
Contract - why do you say "in lieu of"? That makes no sense. That means you were granted them in place of... and thats not correct. If they were granted IN your leasehold then say so. Dont use terms you dont know the meaning of
I think its very interesting to state the MC were clearly incompetentn - not only did they have no power t ogive away your parking, theyve tried to make it no parking at anytime, and then the parkng company havent even followed that basic instruction!