Period of validity

Missaver

1. I think so.  The last advice was to append the 3 court orders which I've referred to in 17-23 above.

2. In my original defence, the Abuse of Process was only mentioned in paragraph 21.  There was no long elaborating information included then, so it is included in the WS now.  I have not heard back from PCM or Gladstones with anything after the Defence was submitted, so the answer is No.  However, I am hoping to rely on arguing the case of Unloading and not parking.  Would  there need to be proof of moving in, as there is no formal contract at the moment, ie, between the apartment owner and partner.  

3. True, there are no prominent signs re 'No parking' at the alleged contravened spot, or even road, for that matter.  The PCN states the offence was 'parking within a Restricted area'.  ' Their photographic evidence only shows the front and back of car.

Fruitcake

Proof or residency would be useful to show that the driver had permission to unload. Their lack of photo' evidence showing the car actually was parked in a restricted area should be attacked.

A copy of the parking contract should be given by the Claimant at the exhibits stage, but never having been to court I am not sure if this should happen before or after WS stage.

It is vital for the Claimant's case that they can show they have permission from, or flowing from the landowner via a MA to operate. 
If you haven't mentioned (your) primacy of contract or (their) proof of parking contract, you should include it now. 

Missaver

Proof of residency is available.  The defendant has never admitted to being the Driver though, and as advised by coupon-mad previously, basing the Defence upon Loading/Unloading and not parking, there's no need to hide behind the Keeper.
The following points from my Defence (page 11) mentions their proof of Contract.  And my Primacy of Contract is point 11 in my WS above, 

17. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to PCM (UK) Ltd and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by all residents and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site.

19. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

Fruitcake

That's all good then. Well done.

Do show us a copy of the scammers alleged parking contract if/when you get it.

Missaver

I have also just edited the WS above to add onto the end of point 7 : 

The parking charge does not state any times or restrictions and how long the car was parked.  It is also stated that the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge :"Parked within a Restricted Area".  To my knowledge, there has never been any such agreement.

1505grandad

All paras need numbering sequentially.

I believe that the following para is out of date and needs amending as there is a new Bill on 18th March 2019 enacted - yet to be "written":-

"12.          Poor Practice used by PPCs

Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald in December 2016 has announced a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers and stated that there will be an assessment of the role of parking companies and examine how drivers are informed of fines. It is also stated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will be taking further steps in due course to tackle poor practice by private parking companies. The article can be seen in exhibit xxx10. I believe this suggests that it is well known and documented that it is noted that some PPCs have poor practice, I believe PCM uses poor practice as they are not following the necessary conditions as further discussed throughout this Statement."

Missaver

Fruitcake said:

Proof or residency would be useful to show that the driver had permission to unload. Their lack of photo' evidence showing the car actually was parked in a restricted area should be attacked.

A copy of the parking contract should be given by the Claimant at the exhibits stage, but never having been to court I am not sure if this should happen before or after WS stage.

It is vital for the Claimant's case that they can show they have permission from, or flowing from the landowner via a MA to operate. 
If you haven't mentioned (your) primacy of contract or (their) proof of parking contract, you should include it now. 

Sorry, what does 'MA' stand for?

Missaver

Thanks 1505grandad, I will tidy up and look into the Bill comment

Le_Kirk

Missaver said:

Sorry, what does 'MA' stand for?

MA = Managing Agent

Coupon-mad

Remove these unnecessary things:
12
13
16
24
26 (all of it)
then show us what the next draft looks like now.