One Parking Solution - Visitors Space PCN

AOneVS

I've just stressed myself out even more, I'm a day late in getting the WS to the court and claimant. I thought the hearing was on 6th April, but it's on 3rd 

DoaM

Is it even still going ahead?

Fruitcake

DoaM said:

Is it even still going ahead?

In light of recent events concerning court activities the OP would be advised to contact their local one on Monday and ask them, but if it is postponed then make sure they get that in writing.

Le_Kirk

AOneVS said:

I've just stressed myself out even more, I'm a day late in getting the WS to the court and claimant. I thought the hearing was on 6th April, but it's on 3rd 

DoaM said:

Is it even still going ahead?

Fruitcake said:

DoaM said:

Is it even still going ahead?

In light of recent events concerning court activities the OP would be advised to contact their local one on Monday and ask them, but if it is postponed then make sure they get that in writing.

All good reason and sound advice but I would say get your WS, evidence and summary cost assessment in on Monday morning (hand delivered if possible) to the court, so that, if/when it is postponed or goes ahead on 3rd April, there can be possibility of the claimant going for a "we didn't get the defendant's WS on time."

AOneVS

Next draft of the WS. I've had a go at describing how the contract fails so miserably:

In the County Court at Worthing

Claim No.: XXXXXXX
Between

ONE PARKING SOLUTION LTD
 (Claimant)

-v-

XXX
(Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
___________________________________________________________________________

1. My name is XXX. I live at XXX. I am the defendant in this matter and litigant in person. I make this statement from my own knowledge and personal experience.

2. Before I describe what happened on the day, I confirm that the essence of my defence of this claim is laid out in my submitted defence, with the addition of a supplementary witness statement outlining more recent precedents for “abuse of process” as part of this witness statement. This supplementary witness statement is attached: (Exhibit VS1)

3. My vehicle received a Notice to Driver on XX November 2018, PCN number OPSXXXXXX (Exhibit VS2). The vehicle was parked on a private estate, where I was visiting my Son. I had parked my car in the visitors space on Furze Close at around 5pm. The reason stated for the PCN was ‘Failure to Display a Valid Permit’. I had visited my Son many times before without the need for a parking permit. The lease for the property I was visiting, dated XX April 2011 (Exhibit VS3) does not contain any terms that define the requirement for a parking permit, nor does it give any right for the freeholder to recover any set penalty if the leaseholder parking terms are breached. If the freeholder is not entitled to impose and recover a set penalty, then it cannot have granted this right to the Claimant and the Claimant cannot exercise it. According to the Managing Agent, parking control was introduced in 2013 and changed companies in 2018. There has been no variance to the terms of the lease.

4. The Claimant’s signs (Exhibit VS4) have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font. In the dark they are barely readible such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Please refer to (Exhibit VS5) Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to demonstrate clear signage capable of forming a contract.

5. The Claimant has provided a land owner contract that fails on multiple points.
    a) Furze Close, where the vehicle was parked, isn't one of the areas listed as under parking control. It is incorrectly listed as Furze Croft, which doesn't exist.
    b) Whilst it has been stated that the Management Company signatory is authorised to sign on behalf of the landowner, there is nothing from the landowner stating this. Anyone could say, I've got the authority to sign a contract on behalf of someone else, but there is no proof of this.
    The contract must be with the landowner or flow from the landowner via an agent. No such agreement has been produced.
    I aver that the landowner has not authorised the Management Company to employ parking control and has not authorised the Claimant to operate on their land as there is no proof to the contrary.
    c) Further to this, the Management Company stated on the contract, does not exist at Companies House.
Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires two authorised signatories from both parties to sign or a director and witness from each party to sign in order that the contract can be lawfully executed. The Act defines the meaning of "authorised". This contract fails the requirements of the Act as the single signatory does not meet the legal definition of "authorised", (director or company secretary) and there is only one signatory from each party.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signed………………………….            Date………………………….   
       [Defendant]

Le_Kirk

4. The Claimant’s signs (Exhibit VS4) have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font. In the dark they are barely readible readable

Typo corrected for you.

Umkomaas

AOneVS said:

D_P_Dance said:

Read Fruitcake's excellent post and write to the court for a postponement sine die, copy to your MP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6117584/come-on-you-lot-grow-a-pair#latest

It's not even my ticket. I took it on for my mum, to shield her from the stress of it all. I'll be ok once I get the WS completed and the bundle delivered to the court. It's annoying that I have to drive to Worthing court to drop off the paperwork, even though the hearing is in Chichester. 

I've not ploughed back through all the posts on this thread, but can you confirm that this is all being done in your mother's name and she will be attending court in person for the hearing?

Coupon-mad

In the County Court at Worthing

That should say Chichester (where the hearing will be).
You are merely dropping it off to Worthing court as they do the admin?

Remove 'at 5pm'.  Do not give them when the car arrived.  I pointed out that the photos will ONLY cover a few minutes so don't ruin that position.

Remove this, again too much info that assists the other side and why would a visitor know this:

 According to the Managing Agent, parking control was introduced in 2013 and changed companies in 2018.

With this (below) as evidence and to save pages, put a pic of the OPS sign next to the Beavis case sign, on the same sheet, remembering that the OPS sign is about two thirds the size of the Beavis sign, so show that:

Please refer to (Exhibit VS5) Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to demonstrate clear signage capable of forming a contract.

AOneVS

Thanks CM, I'll make those changes. I'll be including Exhibit VS1 which is a a couple of pages back and includes the updated abuse of process wording from your defence template. Are any changes required to that? 

The Notice of Allocation has In the County Court at Worthing, although does say the hearing will be in Chichester in the text. The claimant has Worthing at the top of their WS. Should I put Chichester? 

beamerguy

AOneVS said:

Thanks CM, I'll make those changes. I'll be including Exhibit VS1 which is a a couple of pages back and includes the updated abuse of process wording from your defence template. Are any changes required to that? 

The Notice of Allocation has In the County Court at Worthing, although does say the hearing will be in Chichester in the text. The claimant has Worthing at the top of their WS. Should I put Chichester? 

I am confused because Worthing tends to be the home of dodgy legal spankings. Did Gladstones really select this as their court ???? 

 GLADSTONES SPANKED AGAIN, THIS TIME BY THE WORTHING COURT ?
Claim number F0GF1K4A  D.J.Harvey
Gladstones did not bother to turn up again (such a rude bad habit). 
proudsonofduck was awarded £293.02 with the judge quoting Judge Grand's reasons being ABUSE OF PROCESS and adding ....
"Deliberate attempt to mislead the court"
"In contempt of court"
"Cut and paste witness statement with no attempt to address the defence"

READ ABOUT THIS HERE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6113071/win-vs-uk-cpm-gladstones-today#latest

WORTHING IS THE PLACE TO GO