Double Parking Charge Notice for "Not displaying a valid permit"

pastacolg

Thanks for the feedback!

pustit, you're right. I once again brought back the situation from May/June when I said that all relevant excerpts were provided to them and if they wish to obtain a full lease they are free to ask the management company or buy a copy from the Land Registry. Back then they threaten me by CPR 31.14 although it doesn't apply for small claims.

Which I'm going to mention to the judge in my Witness Statement.

pastacolg

I've got the WS from them!

Is it legal to post it here? And ask for your advice on writing my WS today based on their evidence?

Le_Kirk

It is of course permitted to post it here but, before you do, have a read of it and search the forum for some words they use and see if the WS has been posted before.

Fruitcake

Please post their WS here, especially their alleged contract with the landowner. Only redact YOUR personal data.

pastacolg

Here it is with all personal details from both sides redacted.

It looks like they fear the leaseholder part, i.e. 74-85 the most. And rightly so. I need to find a way to proof the primary of contract as they are disputing it.

But I already see that I'll need to provide a proof that I am the leaseholder which I'll happily do by showing the mortgage agreement and other documents.

I'll be writing my Witness Statement tonight or tomorrow so any advice is very welcome.

Johnersh

Do ne sure to find a copy of a gladstones witness statement from another case and exhibit it word for word. Even better if it's signed by someone else so that you can just point out that identikit claims will invariably be met with identikit defences and they cannot be critical of that approach in the circumstances.

Not sure why you omitted the first and last pages - they're quite important. I'll bet the person making the statement has never been to the site and actually has no business stating positively what the signs say or where they're located. Lots of these have a defective statement of truth. 

In the opening paras the statement helpfully points out that the permit is ameredevice to help protect your rights under the lease. It follows that the claimants claim actually defeats the purpose of the scheme.

Worse still, if it is correct that everyone is offered the right to park for £100 without a permit, that actually infringes your rights and I'll bet the parking contract with the managing agent actually doesn't permit them to offer that in any case. 

Fruitcake

Was the rest not sent to you?

Where is the introduction stating who has written the WS, items 1 to 10, the contract, the statement of truth, and the signature of the solicitor/paralegal who wrote it?

Where are the exhibits referred to in paragraph 10 (site plan and information, signage, photos etcetera)?

Oh, and paras 15 to 19 inclusive are missing.

pastacolg

I'll post the missing paras shortly after redacting them. They seem mostly irrelevant and not being the core of their defence.

Worse still, if it is correct that everyone is offered the right to park for £100 without a permit, that actually infringes your rights and I'll bet the parking contract with the managing agent actually doesn't permit them to offer that in any case. 

That's a very good point. Thank you.

Where are the exhibits referred to in paragraph 10 (site plan and information, signage, photos etcetera)? 

They could be used to identify me. I won't post it here. I'll just say that they are very good and there's little to object them. I have attached the signage which is next to my car park's space. Sorry for the quality but this is what they included in the WS pack.

(...) the signature of the solicitor/paralegal

What would you need that for?

Fruitcake

pastacolg said:

I'll post the missing paras shortly. They seem mostly irrelevant and not being the core of their defence.

How do you know this, and how would anyone here know without seeing them?
You were specifically asked to only redact YOUR personal data.

There are several references to page numbers in their WS, but I can't see any included in the version you have shown us.

They referred to the Head Lease as well. Did they include a copy?

The most important thing we need is the alleged contract. Was it included in the WS as it is not referred to in the list of exhibits in para 10?

Johnersh

That's why... 
Not sure why you omitted the first and last pages - they're quite important. I'll bet the person making the statement has never been to the site and actually has no business stating positively what the signs say or where they're located. Lots of these have a defective statement of truth. 
It loses value as just stock argument - light on fact and heavy on generic guff.