Residential PCN help please - ***I WON***

amateurgirl

Thankyou to everyone on this forum, my 'bundle' is done and I'm ready for the hearing. I'll let you know what transpires.
thanks, all

amateurgirl

Hello all
I received the Claimant's WS last week. One of their exhibits is a photo of their signage and I've noticed that it states that the 'fine' is actually £90, not the £100 that they are claiming for, and have been claiming for, since the start of this saga. I've checked all the PCN's, and they too say the charge is £100, even though the signage clearly says £90. 
My WS has gone off already so it's too late to add this in, and maybe it's a moot point now anyway, but I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this.
Their WS also contains the comment that I only appealed one of the PCN's but doesn't expand further, but they seem to be implying that this must mean I'm 'guilty as charged' otherwise I would have appealed more that one. Again, I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on this.
Finally, they're quoting our friend Beavis, and saying that the Supreme Court ruling does apply to residential parking as PCN's have a 'legitimate interest' and 'commercial justification' in controlling parking and are therefore not penalties. I've tried reading the ruling and I'm sorry to say its defeated me, so can you help me with this please?
Thanks all, as ever. 

Redx

Send in a supplementary WS detailing the above , add to a crib sheet for your hearing too

Coupon-mad

Or just raise it as your first point at the hearing, inviting the court to find that the claim must fail because it cannot be said that you agreed to pay £100.

nosferatu1001

Yep, first point you raise. It's their own evidence so they can't deny. The claim must fail, their particulars are false. 

Fruitcake

Please show us their WS and exhibits, especially the alleged contract between them and the landowner. Only redact YOUR personal data.

amateurgirl

Thankyou all.
Fruitcake, there is no contract between them and the landowner, only between them and the MA (unless at some point the MA became the landowner, but I've no evidence of that). 
Does anyone have any comments on the other points in my post, please?
Thanks, all.

Redx

Then the M A must have a contract with the landowner , because permission has to flow from landowner to M A through to the defendant , so there needs to be two at least , which is the most likely scenario

It is for them to prove their case , you to cast doubt on all issues being raised and mentioned

amateurgirl

Hello all
Fruitcake asked me above to show the Claimant's WS, particularly the contract between them and the landowner. I can't show it all, there's loads of it, but in terms of the contract, the contract they've submitted is between them and the MA, not between them and the landowner. They've not shown any involvement of the landowner at all, despite being given the opportunity to do so (and nor has the MA). Also, I've realised the contract is not for my estate, it's for a different estate altogether.

I think the WS is a document template, like all their other correspondence. It contains the predictable ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis argument viz:
"The Court will be aware of the Supreme Court judgement in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 which ruled that Parking Charge Notices might engage the penalty rule because, where applicable, they may not amount to genuine pre-estimates of loss, they have a legitimate interest and commercial justification, that is, the control of parking, such that the penalty rule was not contravened. As such, Parking Charge Notices of the type which are the subject of this claim are payable when validly issued as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the relevant site. As was also recognised in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Claimant also has a legitimate interest in providing an income stream to meet the costs of operating the service and make a profit"
Do you have any views on any of this, please?
Thanks, all.

nosferatu1001

1) It will almost always be between MA and PPC, not landholder and PPC. This is in every thread on the topic. 
So it is an obvious point to raise; how do they have authority frmo the landholderto do this? If they havent shown it, they dont. 
2) You can show it. Upload to a hosting site. Done. 
3) If it is for a different estate dont tell them this right now
Be very very sure it somehow doesnt include your estate. But if it is truly that wrong, then the claimant has not proven they have authority on two accounts - 1) and 3) here. 
4) O fcourse it is a template! You know it is a template, you will have seen dozens of them around by now!
Yes, the same views that everyone has. You show where PE v Beavis does not apply - for example there is no commercial interest of the landholder unlike in Beavis - etc.