UK Car Park Management/Gladstones Court claim

Ladybird150

nosferatu1001 said:

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. 

I will reduce the paragraphs as suggested. Shall I still present the Land Registry document as Exhibit?  

Ladybird150

I would appreciate any more comments on my WS. I would like to drop my WS with bundle to my local Court this Friday as I'm getting worried that we may not be given much time when the new directions arrive. 

nosferatu1001

Of course you include it. Otherwise it's merely hearsay on your part. 

Coupon-mad

Include everything, plus the usual stuff re the abuse of process of course (as seen in every thread) plus your photos.  Plus the usual summary costs assessment - again, seen on every thread, such as by @keypulse and @Chefdave to name two.

Your WS is oddly formatted (all centrally justified) so sort that out so the paragraphs are 'left justified'.  Your WS is long but these are important points, did you put it as clearly as this in your WS?

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.

Ladybird150

Thank you Coupon-mad for your input. I am still working on my WS. When I pasted my WS on the forum, it all got centrally justified for some reason. 

I will make my WS a bit more clear as per your suggestion. 

Ladybird150

I have just noticed that in their WS, UKCPM are relying on Schedule 4 POFA so I have to further amend my WS. Please see Paragraph 19.

Umkomaas

They can only hold the keeper liable if they meet every requirement placed on them by PoFA. Let's see a redacted copy of their NtK (the first notification) front and back, make sure that any dates on the NtK are left showing.

Ladybird150

We first received a copy of parking charge details that were allegedly sent to us on 19th March 2018 in May 2018, over 2 months since the parking charge was allegedly issued and here is the extract from our Defence: 

The Claimant alleges that a Notice to Driver was placed on the windscreen of the vehicle, and has provided photographic evidence of same. The Defendant was unaware of any such notice, and strongly suspect that this was an instance of what is known as ‘ghost ticketing’, whereby a parking company operative places a notice on a windscreen, photographs it, and then removes it. The Defendant only became aware of alleged parking charge when a letter was received from an unlicensed ‘Debt collector, Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of the Claimant dated 20th April 2018, two months later. 

The Notice to Keeper, issued by the Claimant, fails to comply with POFA in that it does not contain all of the mandatory wording specified in the legislation. Specifically, they fail on 8(2)(a), no period of parking specified; 8(2)(b), no statement that the parking charge has not been paid in full; and 8(2)(e), no statement that they do not know the name and address of the driver. The failure to issue a compliant Notice has the effect of making the Claimant unable to pursue the keeper, and therefore the Defendant has no liability under POFA. 

Here is a copy of the letter which UKCPM sent to us in May 2018.

Ladybird150

However in their WS UKCPM have provided a copy of the alleged windscreen notice. Please see below:

Umkomaas

If a Notice to Driver was issued, they are claiming keeper liability under para 9, when para 8 was the correct one. So, by claiming under para 9, the NtK has been served too late for keeper liability (within 15 days of the parking event). It is a point to argue In your WS, whether a Judge will understand the nuances, it's not guaranteed, so you will need to get a full handle on it. The PPC will argue a clerical error no doubt. 

It's an added hurdle though for them to overcome.