UK Car Park Management/Gladstones Court claim

Redx

Ladybird150 said:

Redx said:

bear in mind that the exhibits should be labelled as the defendants initials followed by a number , so not A01, A02 etc but STW/01 , STW02 etc if the defendant is say S T Walton for example

Many thanks. I was not aware of this.I will label with my husband's initials.

bear in mind the confusion if the claimant labelled theirs as A01 , A02 etc , or Exhibit A , Exhibit B etc, its a small but important detail

nosferatu1001

I would swap the contract issue around
I would state as fact that the area the vehicle was parked in is not owned by landholder X, the one named in the contract with the PPC, as shown in this title plan....
THEN i would go into even if they do own it, the contract is not validly executed... argument
I think if you reformulate that series of facts more clearly and concisely  it should come across more strongly - it sounds like youre saying what I have summarised, but im not sure. If im not sure, can you be sure a court will be?

Ladybird150

nosferatu1001 said:

I would swap the contract issue around
I would state as fact that the area the vehicle was parked in is not owned by landholder X, the one named in the contract with the PPC, as shown in this title plan....
THEN i would go into even if they do own it, the contract is not validly executed... argument
I think if you reformulate that series of facts more clearly and concisely  it should come across more strongly - it sounds like youre saying what I have summarised, but im not sure. If im not sure, can you be sure a court will be?

Unfortunately the area where the vehicle was parked belongs to the land owner with whom UKCPM made contract. However what I discovered when checking the land registry document for the right of way land (industrial estate) is that UKCPM also managed around 8 car parking spaces which was removed from the title for exclusive right of another landowner and they did not provide written authority with this second land owner. Maybe the second landowner did give them permission but I believe they still needed to have written authority to manage the 8 car parking spaces.   I wanted to show to the judge that UKCPM did not have proper authorities in place to manage the whole industrial estate and they were managing the whole industrial estate. 

They were also placing signs above other parking signs which in my opinion does not help their case.  

It is possible that this is completely irrelevant to my case but it shows that UKCPM do not check land titles before signing up. 

Ladybird150

I thought I'c clarify my points on signage and post some photos. When entering the estate there were UKCPM signs placed above another Company's signs. In my opinion it would have been impossible for any motorist to decide which signs were in operation. These signs were removed around 6 months after the event. 

UKCPM signs state to park wholly within a marked bay. There were no marked bays anywhere on the estate at that time. The only marked bays were at the end of the estate and these parking bays were removed from the title for exclusive right of another owner of an industrial unit. 

The vehicle in question was parked in another area where again there were no bays or any markings. 

 

nosferatu1001

If the title is nothing to do with the land where your vehicle was parked, its got nothign to do with this claim, to my mind.

It needs to be relevant or not. 

Ladybird150

nosferatu1001 said:

If the title is nothing to do with the land where your vehicle was parked, its got nothign to do with this claim, to my mind.

It needs to be relevant or not. 

Thank you for your reply.

UKCPM sent a picture of the site plan to the Court with their witness statement stating  they had authority to manage this land. I am trying to show to the judge that this is not the case and that they did not have authority to manage the whole estate. 

I would like to hear more opinions on this.

nosferatu1001

the obvious opinion is
- theyre misleading the court but
- not in, to my mind, a material matter. They still have authority over the area in discussion? If yes, then a court is likely to "so what" it. 

nosferatu1001

Court isnt a case of "gotcha! that letter "t" wasnt crossed! you lose!" 
Every claim I have seen the Judge is interested in relevant matters only. 

Ladybird150

nosferatu1001 said:

Court isnt a case of "gotcha! that letter "t" wasnt crossed! you lose!" 
Every claim I have seen the Judge is interested in relevant matters only. 

Points noted and will remove this from my WS. 

nosferatu1001

I would leave it in, but in a much reduced way. Concision is what you need to be mindful of. At least it shows theyre not fantastically accurate in their WS!
By much reduced, 2 lines or so.