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

Were_Doomed

Fruitcake said:

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

Which part of that post did you misunderstand? The folks here need to see the full details, with only YOUR personal details redacted - that's why this was emphasised. The WHY will become apparent thereafter.

pastacolg

Here it is.

Fruitcake

Whoever wrote that rubbish has expressed many opinions without fact. They may well say the internet was used to find a defence, but they cannot possibly know whether the defendant understands what they have written or not. 
When judges are faced with a comment that someone has obtained help from the internet, their usual response is, "so what?"

KeithP

So we still don't know who wrote that WS. Nor have you shown us their Statement of Truth.

Why do you insist on hiding these details? I thought you were looking for help?

Johnersh

The biggest problem with the statement is that it contains no fact. None of that is within her direct knowledge. This is a statement from a paralegal who has merely supplied and commented on documents sent to her. It then just delves into legal argument. Its an abuse. 

We know not by whom at her client company documents have been produced. She appears to quote terms of the lease selectively. 

She doesn't comment on the site at all or AFAIK the actual contract with the parking company. She refers to various cases but disregards the obvious point - this is not a commercial car park, it's your home. You don't have a choice of somewhere else to park.

There's much criticism of the o/p but they are presumably writing to the defendant at the address they manage and can tell in 2 seconds that they've issued a permit to that address. They don't need to see the lease.  Monkeys. 

pastacolg

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that things that may seem irrelevant to me might be very relevant to the case. Nevertheless I will redact any personal data from both sides.

Attached is what you have asked.

Johnersh said:

(...) they are presumably writing to the defendant at the address they manage and can tell in 2 seconds that they've issued a permit to that address. They don't need to see the lease..

Thank you. Exactly! This is the whole reason I'm defending this claim. If the claimant was a genuine company they would cancel the PCNs immediately once realised they were issued to an exclusive user of that car park space.

Johnersh said:

The biggest problem with the statement is that it contains no fact. None of that is within her direct knowledge.

Let me be a devil's advocate for a moment. Why should this matter at all if the witness had have access to a full photographic documentation of the car park? I can't refute their photos (signage, etc.) as my only counter-evidence would be the exact same places but just photographed at different angles.

Were_Doomed

pastacolg said:

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that things that may seem irrelevant to me might be very relevant to the case. Nevertheless I will redact any personal data from both sides that relates to myself only.

I've edited your comment to show what the folks here are actually asking of you. There is no risk whatsoever to you for leaving the names/signatures etc. of the claimant's side in what you show here.

Johnersh

Nice. Well good luck to them. 

1. Rules for the common enjoyment of the management areas. This is not a common area and no one else has rights over the land. Arguably those are rules relating to access roads, keeping stairwells clear etc not rules which fetter your exclusive rights to park. 

2. There's a reasonability clause - I see that *That* didn't make the statement. That's in relation to moving or reallocating the bay.

Changing your fundamental right to park is no less significant such that I'd argue that the Landlord must also act reasonably. 

Exclusive right to park (so how is it they think their signs can contractually permit anyone to park without a permit) and if moving the designated bay or using its management function, the landlord must act reasonably. Suing a resident parked in their own bay not causing anyone an obstruction must be unreasonable.

**it would still be helpful to see the contract between the managing agent and the car park, assuming that's exhibited.

The claimants witness statement just says everything is above board but I don't think anything that she says is actually within her knowledge at all. All she can really say is that she's been provided with a wodge of documents. The court interprets the law. Without having any knowledge her statement is largely template driven - exactly the criticism of the defendant. It is disingenuous. 

Johnersh

Scroll back and look at the thread of @F11FRE for the claimant statement - esp paras 28 onwards. You'll see that various paragraphs are near identical. That's not coincidence, it's because this is a template approach by parking companies. 

pastacolg

Thank @Johnersh . You're absolutely right. They just pick sentences from the lease that has nothing to do with the car park. Completely out of context. I'll post the redacted contract between the management company and the parking shortly. And will look at @F11FRE post as well.

@Were_Doomed I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless I'd like the other party to perform same reduction if they were discussing stuff on a public forum. I still want to stay civil although I despise their actions.