County Court Papers for parking in own business car park

Clairns

I forgot to mention, I also included e mails from the landowner to VCS asking for them to overturn court proceedings- which VCS have ignored and processed to the day in court.

Coupon-mad

However, on the day in question there were building works which blocked off the spaces that they had allocated to us.

You are protected by the findings in Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and Saeed -v-Plustrade [2000] PLSCS 274.

Don't go off on any other tangents as your FIRST point.

I have submitted all documents including my evidence and witness statement.

If you didn't file & serve a copy of Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and Saeed -v-Plustrade [2000] PLSCS 274 with the salient points highlighted, then serve & file a SKELETON ARGUMENT this week - see NEWBIES thread.

skoyne

Let us know how you get on. I have an eerily similar battle going on with VCS in Sheffield only my lease is from 2010 and says we have unfettered rights to use the whole carpark! They have been an absolute nightmare to deal with and I really hope you win.

The_Deep

Great, so you have a right to park and you pay business rates for that right.

But surely CM the point is not that a permit was not displayed but that OP parked in someone else's space, not their own.

I do not see how Saeed V Plustrade helps,

DoaM

Hence the reference in post #13 to those other two cases?

Clairns

Thanks for the advice, I will file a copy of Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and Saeed -v-Plustrade [2000] PLSCS 274 with the salient points highlighted.

The court letter said all evidence should be filed within 2 weeks- how strict are they with this deadline as that has now passed? Is it still worth sending? Will they consider it?

The_Deep

Sorry, do not see it. Unless I have misread, IIMU that in Saeed v Plustrade the amount of parking was drastically reduced. In the present case this does d not appear to be the case.

Clairns

In my case the parking was reduced for around 24 hours due to temporary building works- with bollards, barriers and a works van in the spaces the permit says I should park in!

Coupon-mad

Reduced parking. Taking away the right of way/right to park.

That is why those two cases apply. And I'm adding two more.

Have you found the transcripts for court for each, not just an article about them?

You are allowed to file and serve a skeleton argument a couple of days before a hearing and can adduce case law in it. You need to do that! It sounds like no real legal argument has been put forward and your case cries out for it.

Examples of a skeleton (& how it differs from a WS) are in the NEWBIES thread - please read!

What you DO NOT DO on a Friday, of course, is send anything 'signed for'(Noooo!) even to the court (and never to a PPC/solicitor) as none are open on Saturdays - and then you have no control over when/if the skeleton is signed for at all.

So when it's ready, email your skeleton to the PPC (VCS are not using a solicitor I assume?). And post by normal 1st class post tomorrow or Saturday morning to the local court, with the first thing visible when opened, the DATE & TIME of the hearing and the Claim Number, and the heading 'Defendant's skeleton argument to assist the court'.

The car was only in the unallocated space for a short period of time while I undertook urgent business at the property.

That can be argued as a ''minor vicissitude'' then...and that phrase comes from Jopson v Homeguard (did you put that into evidence, I can't find it in your thread at all?) and Bulstrode v Lambert, as explained here from a pepipoo thread (you can copy this into your skelly):

In the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in Jopson v Home Guard Services B9GF0A9E, the Appeal Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload, pass and re-pass using rights of vehicular access, which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: ''To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.'' Where a right of way exists, interfering with that right of way is a civil wrong, namely a nuisance. A legal person whose land has the benefit of a right of way may take action against any person interfering with his right, whether the owner of the road or a person who also enjoys a right of way, or someone unconnected with the road.

All case law transcripts are easy to Google, and Jopson is in the Parking Prankster's case law pages. Get on it asap and show us your skeleton, which is basically your legal arguments & all these cases.

And, errm, many months ago, Umkomaas and I both asked an important question that I can't see the answer to (unless I missed it) but you talked about business rates:

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is it your company which is being charged, or an individual.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is the claim addressed to a person, or a company? Remember to state the Defendant correctly, to match the claim, and if that's a company, then an officer of the company must sign the defence.

Please tell us, is the named Defendant you as a person, or a COMPANY?

Finally, show us what you DID already say in your WS and what evidence went with it? Did you include with your WS some sort of proof of your business rates for the right to park? Not just photos and emails?

I also included e mails from the landowner to VCS asking for them to overturn court proceedings- which VCS have ignored and processed to the day in court.

Did you clearly paint that as 'no legitimate interest/commercial justification' (USING THOSE WORDS?) citing the Beavis case as your case law? If not then you missed a trick there and it needs to be stated in the Skeleton.

Clairns

I will look into putting a skelly argument together this weekend, but to answer your question the claim is against an individual not a company.

I didn't add the 'no legitimate interest' words in my witness statement, but I will draft a skeleton and post for comment/advice. I still have some time before the actual hearing.