Gladstones [Link Parking] - Visitor Parking County Court Claim

Le_Kirk

VSOP wrote: »

I see what you're saying, does this sort of thing heavily go against people on the day?

No but you are expecting the judge, having already read your defence, the claimant's claim and your and the claimant's witness statements to then read another long document that adds nothing new.

Umkomaas

What are the 5 key points you'd wish the Judge to look at at your hearing. Bullet points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

VSOP

Got these 4 so far, fishing for a fifth. What are your thoughts?

1. I am a resident - my tenancy agreement should have primacy over the their basic contract with their landowner.

2. Poor/inadequate signage. Not in line with IPC code of practice. Claimaint is also a member of IPC.

3. Claimant doesn't possess planning permission to erect signage. Checked local borough council applications.

4. No proof I was the driver at the time.

Le_Kirk

There are some aspects of the skeleton argument that would be better placed in the WS particularly those that refer to evidence especially as your WS does not refer to evidence at all. Your fifth point could be landowner authority.

Umkomaas

VSOP wrote: »

Got these 4 so far, fishing for a fifth. What are your thoughts?

1. I am a resident - my tenancy agreement should have primacy over the their basic contract with their landowner.

2. Poor/inadequate signage. Not in line with IPC code of practice. Claimaint is also a member of IPC.

3. Claimant doesn't possess planning permission to erect signage. Checked local borough council applications.

4. No proof I was the driver at the time.

1. Good start. Have you copied the relevant parts of it and enclosed as evidence in your WS?

2. Another valid point. Do you have your own photos?

3. They don't need planning permission for signs. They need advertising consent. But it's irrelevant to the civil court as it's a criminal issue. The Judge won't touch with a bargepole. Don't waste your time on that, take it up with the council if you've got the energy and resilience to see it through. Could be months of nugatory effort.

4. They have all the proof necessary if they copy your posts on this thread. If you raise it as a key point to a Judge and he/she asks you 'Well, were you the driver, or not?', what are you going to say?

Also, it's not clear whether the PPC have met PoFA requirements, if they have, who the driver was becomes irrelevant, they have the right to pursue you (the registered keeper) in any case.

5. If you're fishing for a 5th, and nothing jumps out to you, there's no point in trying to find one.

A Skeleton Argument is not essential in the small claims court, my advice is just have a notepad with jottings to remind you of the key points of your defence.

Remember, these hearings often only take a few minutes, while you might get the opportunity to speak, it won't be for long, so where do you think you're going to get the time to speak to a 24-point SA containing over 2,000 words?

VSOP

Umkomaas wrote: »

1. Good start. Have you copied the relevant parts of it and enclosed as evidence in your WS?

2. Another valid point. Do you have your own photos?

3. They don't need planning permission for signs. They need advertising consent. But it's irrelevant to the civil court as it's a criminal issue. The Judge won't touch with a bargepole. Don't waste your time on that, take it up with the council if you've got the energy and resilience to see it through. Could be months of nugatory effort.

4. They have all the proof necessary if they copy your posts on this thread. If you raise it as a key point to a Judge and he/she asks you 'Well, were you the driver, or not?', what are you going to say?

Also, it's not clear whether the PPC have met PoFA requirements, if they have, who the driver was becomes irrelevant, they have the right to pursue you (the registered keeper) in any case.

5. If you're fishing for a 5th, and nothing jumps out to you, there's no point in trying to find one.

A Skeleton Argument is not essential in the small claims court, my advice is just have a notepad with jottings to remind you of the key points of your defence.

Remember, these hearings often only take a few minutes, while you might get the opportunity to speak, it won't be for long, so where do you think you're going to get the time to speak to a 24-point SA containing over 2,000 words?

Thanks for your response.

1. Yes I have, my tenancy inventory clearly indicates the provision of several parking permits.

2. Yes I do have my own photos. Photos showing the car parked in the same space. Showing it is clearly not an obstruction or parked where there are marking saying not to do so.
I also have photos showing the signange is very unclear - one example of a sign covered in bushes, another example of a sign covered in graffiti.

3. Noted - thanks.

4. If asked if I was the driver in question by the judge, I will say I can't recall as at the date in question another family member was using the car for errands.

5. Your point about hearings only taking a few minutes, is that correlated to the sucess rate fighting these parking cowboys too? I am really worried about the outcome of this.

Umkomaas

5. Your point about hearings only taking a few minutes, is that correlated to the sucess rate fighting these parking cowboys too? I am really worried about the outcome of this.

It comes from experience here, informed by court reports provided by those we have helped. The vast majority of those we help right the way through the process, win their cases. 20 minutes is about it, unless it's a very complicated issue.

VSOP

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If it is for a similar (alleged) infringement, submit the same or slightly modified defence and in a covering letter ask for both cases to be consolidated into one hearing. Send the same covering letter at DQ stage (unless you've already had the DQ for the first one) and keep sending covering letters until someone reads and actions them. If it is an entirely different scenario, might be better to start a new thread to prevent confusion between the two cases.

I did request for cases to be merged several times, I was then sent a form where I was required to pay roughly £150-£200 to do this which I refused on the basis this request would also save the court's time/resources. Do you think on the day the DJ will allow the merger of 2 claims that are identical??

In full blown panic mode...tomorrow is the day. Appreciate all your support thus far.

I will be attending with a cost schedule, is the below realistic?

Ordinary Costs


Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 07/11/2019 £95.00

Return mileage from home address to Court (e.g. 60 miles x £0.50) £30.00

Parking near Court £5.00

Sub-total £130.00 ======


Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £57.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £20.00

Sub-total £77.00 ======



£ 207.00 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

KeithP

Email a copy of your Costs Schedule to the court and the claimant tonight if you haven't already done so.

VSOP

Thanks @KeithP

My brief plan for tomorrow:

//Seen a few things about CPR rules but not sure if relevant in my case//

1. Object to rights of audience - sighting Law Gazette and McShane v Lincoln (June 2016).
2. Proceed with case - the following are my key arguments:

A. I am a resident of XXX and my tenancy agreement has primacy over Link Parking’s very basic contract with the property management company. Surely the terms on the signs were only ever intended for rogue parkers.

The Claimant has actually had a very similar case in July 2017 at Bristol County Court (Link Parking vs Mr. A [D8GF2F8Z]), where it was established Link Parking cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the existing contract with the landlord by merely erecting poorly visible signage on the premises; overriding existing rights enjoyed by their visitors.


B. The Claimant has failed to show a contract where the landowner has given them permission to enter into contracts with the public and make claims and take civil action against drivers. If you review the contract with the landowner as provided by the Claimant, ‘number of signs’ says ‘N/A’. I believe this deems the contract inaccurate if the Claimant is placing reliance on its provision of signage at the site.


C. The Claimant’s signage is unclear and wordy with actual terms and ‘parking charge’ buried in small print. Thus, making the signage incapable of forming a contract and they fail to meet both the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice. The Claimant is also a member of the IPC as indicated on their signage.

Drawing attention to the Judgement at the Cardiff Court in 2016 - Link Parking Ltd vs Mr L [C9GF5875] resulting in the case being dismissed due to inadequate signage.


D. The Claimant’s signage states that vehicles must be “displaying a valid parking permit and parked in the correct allocated bay”. There is no indication which bays are allocated to whom and most if not all of the road markings are poor visible. As indicated by the photos.