County Court Papers for parking in own business car park

Clairns

Is the first skeleton argument in the newbies thread still available? (from plenty of chill...) I see a link to drop box but that is no longer available.

Coupon-mad

Not if the Dropbox has been removed by the poster.

Look for posts by bargepole as he has probably posted skeletons and is legally qualified so his legal language is on point.

Clairns

Hi,

I am really struggling with the skeleton argument- and would appreciate any help in expanding the points and case law mentioned.

As a reminder, VCS would like costs as I allegedly parked in another bay (different to the one on the permit). On the day there was temporary building works in the section of the car park my allocated spaces are in and I had to park in another section of the car park to complete urgent business at our premies. VCS have kindly included photos of the building work and works van in their 'evidence' and I have submitted this too.

The landowner wrote to VCS on numerous occasions to drop charge- but this fell on deaf ear and it looks like they want another day in court.

Preamble

This skeleton argument is to assist the court in the above matter for the hearing date 27 June 2019.
The witness statement from, VCS is not credible and contains invalid statements that will be shown in my skeleton argument. There is no evidence to suggest that the witness was present on the day in question and made assumptions based on photographs.
The defendant will highlight to the court that the claim is fundamentally flawed and will rely on numerous cases which supports his argument including Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) Jopson v Homeguard and Bulstrode V Lambert.
Submissions

1, Para 7 claims that as registered keeper I breached the advertised terms and conditions but fails to point out which terms and conditions I breached. In addition, the poster (document 19) makes no mention of the terms and conditions. At no point have I been sent information from VCS about the terms and conditions of parking

2 Para 8 The landowner who appointed VCS to manage the car park e-mailed VCS to overturn the claim and cease court proceedings. VCS have ignored all requests to do so, they have no legitimate interest/commercial justification as judged from the Parking Eye vs Beavis 2015 case.

3) Para 17 As can be seen by VCS own photos a permit was clearly displayed on the date in question.

4) Para 22-24 the defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as spam and recognised at the time that they were not from an authority such as a local council or police. The defendant correctly assumes at the time (and to date) that the issue was of no relevant to them.

5) On the day in question there was building work being undertaken in the car park which blocked the car parking spaces. I assert that this can only be seen as a 'minor vicissitude as decided in the Jopson v Homeguard and Bulstrode v Lambert case. On the day in question the right of parking as detailed in my lease was taken away.

6) I further quote the findings from the Kettel v Bloomfold (2012) case when the judge stated that “In general a servient landowner has no right unilaterally to extinguish an easement over one area of land on provision of an equivalent easement over another”.

7) The Saeed v Plustrade Ltd case further supports my defence when the court considered the implications of a reduction of parking spaces from 13 to 4, the judge stated ‘The attitude of the parking company as revealed in past correspondence appears to have been ‘since we have the power to specify a parking area it logically follows that we have the power to withdraw a specification or not to specify at all’. In my judgment, this attitude represents a breach of the well known and well established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant.’. I relate to my case when the parking was reduced for a short period of time due to building works.

6) Further more in the Jopson v Homeguard Services B9GF0A9E the appeal judge found that the 'position was analogous to the right to unload, pass and repass using rights of vehicular access which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lamber (1953). The right of was in that case was 'to pass and repass with or without vehicles for the purposes of obtaining access to the building, known at 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 this right, whether the owner of the road or a person who also enjoys a right of way or someone unconnected with the road.

7) This case equivalent council fines are £25 rising to £50 after 14 days. In comparison to this the sum demanded is clearly far more than that needed to deter, far more than genuine losses, and is therefore disproportionate.

CONDUCT

1 Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, I was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regards to the pertinent facts and information of the claim
2 I have had no choice but to serve a fully comprehensive and inclusive defence in response to the claim
3. The Claimant seeks to apportion liability to the Defendant for not replying to their letters or identifying the driver, and suggests that this conduct caused the Claimant costs
4. The Claimant’s accusations that the Defendant’s inactivity caused litigation is outlandish. Even if the Defendant appealed the Notice to Keeper by reason that they were not the driver, the Claimant would still have incorrectly pursued the Defendant under ‘presumption of driver’ as this is the basis of the claim.
5 It can be evidenced to the Court that the Claimant failed Civil Practice Directions, By merely stating that they did not is not only a false and inaccurate statement it attempts to mislead the case entirely.
6 The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.

beamerguy

2 Para 8 Craveland Ltd (Cushman and Wakefield) who appointed VCS to manage the car park e-mailed VCS to overturn the claim and cease court proceedings. VCS have ignored all requests to do so

Who is the boss here Craveland Ltd (Cushman and Wakefield) or VCS ?

I would suggest you tell them that you require them to attend court with you as a witness as they requested VCS to cancel.
This alone may stir their loins.

VCS are likely to say as it's going to court, they cannot stop it.
That would be a lie and utter rubbish and another factor to point out to the judge.

I assume VCS has added a fake £60 on top ??

If they have, then it will be ABUSE OF PROCESS and you can what one court thought about that ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75929156#post75929156

Clairns

Well I suppose VCS have nothing to lose- (apart from the £25 court fee) they aren't paid by the landowner for the 'services' they offer so VCS rely on an income by giving tickets to anybody they can......

beamerguy

Clairns wrote: »

Well I suppose VCS have nothing to lose- (apart from the £25 court fee) they aren't paid by the landowner for the 'services' they offer so VCS rely on an income by giving tickets to anybody they can......

Who cares, it's price scammers have to pay

Clairns

I contacted the landowner this morning to put pressure on VCS, they have done in the past but it has fallen on deaf ears- VCS must think they have a good case.

My fear is that the person representing VCS in court will be experienced with the law and be able to debate/baffle me with science.

skoyne

What happened???? I hope you won

MonkeyRum

Clairns wrote: »

My fear is that the person representing VCS in court will be experienced with the law and be able to debate/baffle me with science.

One thing you can do at the beginning of a hearing is to challenge VCS's representative on his or her "right of audience". Only certain people have the right to address the court and PPCs have been known to send representatives that do not have the right of audience.

[I'm a new user so can't post links, type www. into your browser then paste the rest of the link]
parkingcowboys.co.uk/right-of-audience/

EDIT: Apologies, I didn't realise the hearing date had been and gone.

Umkomaas

One thing you can do at the beginning of a hearing is to challenge VCS's representative on his or her "right of audience".

You need to know the nuances of this - who does and who does not have 'Right of Audience'.

Read this link to understand some of the issues. Johnersh's contribution is worth noting particularly as he is a qualified lawyer.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75477598

Some Judges have been pyssed off by RoA being raised, especially where the defendant doesn't really understand the issue, setting the Judge off in a really grumpy mood.

Another point to bear in mind is that almost all advocates who turn out for the PPC are often quite poorly briefed, some have little to no understanding of private parking issues. Where they have been 'shown the RoA door', somebody has to 'front' the claimant's case, and with only you and the Judge in the room, guess who's going to do that.

I'd rather take on a hapless gun-for-hire advocate than a potentially sharp-as-a-tack Judge who you're going to have to argue against as he/she puts the claimant's case.

Getting an advocate dismissed doesn't see your case dismissed with him/her.