patrons only PCN

Redx

Some courts do have limits to reduce any printing requirements , but due to covid19 most are accepting digital copies anyway. Only your nominated court knows those rules , not us

Make sure that you emailed the solicitor as well , so court and also the WW lawyers

Coupon-mad

The PDF size limit is historical, pre-pandemic.  So no, no-one makes their PDFs and attachments smaller now that everything is emailed.

pustit

Hove sounds good though - there's some half-decent PPC fighters living in that neck of the woods!
What happened to Hot Bring and S*d G24 ?  Haven't heard from them for some time.

anicecuppa

Received their WS today so it looks like they are proceeding :-(
Here is a link to the WS with my personal info redacted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UI6RwPlE9gtKnXfpLmFxDUwrAh_aejZ4/view?usp=sharing
Any help/final thoughts appreciated. Hearing is in 16 days.

Umkomaas

There's been a very recent case where that truly awful landowner 'contract' (PSA) was ripped by a court. Also, the page containing the signatures looks to be a separate document to the main body of the PSA - is it part of the same contract?  The date of the contract has been changed by overwriting - as that is not initialled, who has made the change?

Castle

The "Parking Services Agreement" fails to identify their client; so it's "null & void".

anicecuppa

I'm grateful for these comments. Given what has been said about the likelihood I don't get to say anything in court, should I be responding to these things in writing within the next two days?  How would I do that? By way of a revised WS?  

Fruitcake

If the hearing is in 16 days, you probably have a day or two to knock up a supplementary WS using comments from the regulars, so hang fire for a bit before you send it off. You could send a late Supp WS, but an on time one would be better. 

"supply an erect car park signs ..." Has WW never heard of proof reading?

Fruitcake

Do you know who the landowner is?

A contract with a motorist can only be formed by signage at the site.

The white sign shown as Exhibit 2 in the claimant's witness statement is a stock image. The claimant's own photographs clearly show that this sign did not exist at the site in question at the time of the alleged event. The inclusion of this stock image in the witness statement is therefore a false instrument, a deliberate attempt to deceive.

In any case, the stock image clearly states that parking is for "Patrons only whilst they are using the premises, and the premises are open."
The premises are not defined on the sign, and the driver was using the bank on the site whilst the bank was open, and therefore complied with the requirements of the image even though no such sign detailing parking restrictions was displayed on site.

There are two entrances to the car park. The claimant's own images clearly show that there were no signs at either entrance. This is a breach of the IPC Code of Practice (quote the version number and the relevant part.)
It is also a breach of paragraph 1 of the alleged Parking Scheme Agreement (PSA) with the client shown as Exhibit 1 of the claimants witness statement that states that car park signs will be erected "in clear and visible manner."

The individual parking bays are not marked for use of customers to a specific premises only. This again is a breach of paragraph 1 of the PSA.
There are no signs in front of the car or parking bays at all, as clearly shown in the claimant's witness statement, let alone ones that could be seen by the driver. Both entrances served access to at least two establishments on the site, one of which was used by the claimant (TSB Bank).

Since there was neither signage nor surface markings to the contrary, a reasonable person would assume that use of any unmarked parking bay was permitted for customers of the bank situated within the car park.

Neither the claimant nor Carspares limited are the landowner. (If this isn't known as fact, then aver that it is true and proof to the contrary is required.)

The Client has not been named on the PSA. This breaches the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Section 37 relating to Simple Contracts. This Act requires signatories to have express or implied authority to form a contract with another party. Tina Wood is neither the landowner nor an officer (Director or Company Secretary) of the landowner, and therefore has neither express or implied authority.

The PSA also fails Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 because it has not been signed by two authorised signatories as defined by the Act. The document therefore has failed to be validly executed.

Umkomaas

Excellent demolition @Fruitcake! 👆