UKPC LBC Residential parking

Coupon-mad

And everyone, please, before you forget, do the two consultations this weekend!

xscape

Thank you so much for the pointers, have really been battling to write this. Lot's of other stressors from losing a family member to covid and additional stress on the family has lost my focus. I will pull myself together and see this through. 

D_P_Dance

It can be theraputic when you beat a scammer.

xscape

Please find attached the barebones. Have borrowed elements from other recent wins and am struggling to tie it all together. It is lacking numbering,  exhibits, cost schedule. Tearing apart greatfully received.

I would like to deliver to the court on Friday, absolute deadline is Monday.

Coupon-mad

Primacy of contract stuff looks good on a skimread but I can't see you've copied the latest example WS in the NEWBIES thread, have a look at that one and work your primacy of contract argument around that version.  You also need evidence and a costs assessment but that example shows you all of it.

Fruitcake

I agree that your primacy of contract stuff looks good. Have you stated that a responsible company would have checked the rights of the land users (lease/AST/head-lease etcetera) before infesting the site, so by not doing so the scammers have acted unreasonably?
Don't forget to include a copy of the relevant parts of your lease as an exhibit, plus anything else you want to rely on such as proof of landowner identity.
You can use several exhibits or put everything into one pdf document. Exhibit numbers are normally identified by your initials plus a sequential number such as XS001, and refer to them in your WS where relevant. 
Use the scammers exhibit numbers where you refer to their alleged contract etcetera.

1505grandad

Just checking a para in WS (in case copy and paste involved):-

"The contract document the Claimant provided to me in relation to these proceedings, and on

which they rely for their authority to operate on the estate, allows only for the issuing of charges

and pursuit of outstanding charges for the sum of £100."

As opening post and subsequents re POC indicate a charge of £90, can the different amount of (allows only) £100 also indicate issues regarding the contract?:-

OP  -  "Mutiple tickets date from 2014 for parking in a designated area (visitor space) without a permit and overstaying allowed time as per signage. Total outstanding including arbitrary additional charges (£60 added if referred to debt recovery agent, total £150 per charge) circa £2k."

xscape

Fruitcake @Coupon-mad I hadn't spotted the most recent WS in the newbies thread so am a repeat offender there 

I will review and amend.
1505grandad Correct.
The contract states £100 reduced to £60 whereas PCNs (received from evidence bundle) state £90 reduced to £50. The court claim seeks £150 per alleged contravention, with the typical inflated by £60 charge.

I have not received a WS from the claimant, should I consider waiting until the last possible day (Monday) before submission to the court? I can hand deliver if necessary.

Coupon-mad

The contract states £100 reduced to £60 whereas PCNs (received from evidence bundle) state £90 reduced to £50. The court claim seeks £150 per alleged contravention, with the typical inflated by £60 charge.

That must be stated in your WS because it means a driver has no certainty of contract even if they saw the poorly-placed, small print signs.

During COVID you can email the court.

xscape

@Coupon-mad sorry, just to clarify, are you saying that I can email my WS to the courts on the 28th (deadline)?

I have also just located a letter from the managing agent that refers to the terms of the lease requiring a permit (it doesn't)
This further highlights that they had never scrutinized the lease at all prior to beginning operations. 

I thought I had found but subsequently lost a thread referring clauses in the lease which SCS will no doubt rely on to show that the leaseholder didn't have "unfettered" rights to park. As they clearly have not consulted the lease is it enough to state that? I would like to strengthen that argument if possible.