Victory over One Parking Solution / DCB Legal

valiant24

Hi Coupon, thanks for this.
To take your points:

• I will adapt your Witness Statement for Bexton, adapt it to my case, and post it here for checking if I may?
• The site is The Deco Building on the Lewes Road
• I didn't appeal to POPLA so nothing from them.
• OPS has not sent me its Witness Statement or evidence yet.  I am unsure what Landowner Authority I have, however one of the Directors of the Right-to-Manage company helpfully sent me a copy of the contract between them (although executed by a junior employee at the Managing Agents, not an official of the RTM at all) and OPS if that's the same thing?
• An provided by OPS's predecessor was displayed.   We'd obtained this permit because it was free of charge, but OPS's were not.  It is not evident that the RTM company ever gave formal notice that the old permits were invalid (or indeed were valid in the first place).
• No hearing date has yet been set, just a demand for WS and other documentation by 28/07/20.  However it will be in Staines, the nearest Court to me.  Not that I will attending anyway as I am 79 and in the "shielded" category.

Two follow-up questions if I may:
1. Does your template for Becton under the heading "Abuse of process - the quantum and unfair terms and notices", ie Sections 16 to 18, include the very latest advice on Abuse of Process?
2. I intend to have my son-in-law as Lay representative.   Will I have to talk at all at the Hearing (presumably conducted by phone?) .  If so I may still offer to settle as I really do not want to have to say a word.

DoaM

You will likely have to confirm your ID and confirm that you agree to your Lay Rep acting on your behalf. Other than that you shouldn't need to speak unless the judge directly questions you. (I don't believe you need to respond at all to the Claimant's rep, your Lay Rep can do that).

Coupon-mad

In my experience when I lay rep, the Defendant just confirms their name and that they are happy for their lay rep to speak, and they agree to mute their phone but stay present on the line.

 one of the Directors of the Right-to-Manage company helpfully sent me a copy of the contract between them (although executed by a junior employee at the Managing Agents, not an official of the RTM at all) and OPS if that's the same thing?

Yes!  I will send you a pm.  I'd like to look at that.  I have a collection of OPS landowner contracts and can spot the holes in them at twenty paces!

And yes, the WS I wrote for @Bexon has what is needed for abuse of process - it does not have to be long - as long as you also append the Southampton case, and ideally, a picture of OPS' sign next to the Beavis case sign (normal for OPS cases I handle - I think @ParkingMad has a PDF example) and the Beavis case x 3 paras copied onto a single sheet, and a link to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2.

ParkingMad

Hi valiant24,
Here is a photo of the OPS sign, with the ParkingEye v Beavis sign to scale for comparison.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0w1qney44x8jnz/Beavis%20v%20OPS%20sign%20Residential.pdf?dl=0

valiant24

Thank you ParkingMad. 
You say "the OPS" sign but of course I might struggle to demonstrate that the sign at the site in question in July 2017 was the same size as in your pic.   I suppose I could claim that yours is a "standard" OPS sign and leave them to prove that the one in situ was different ...?

This plays well to my defence which - although the size of signage is not my principal defence (primary of Tentants' contract is - stated):

1.       The Claimant’s sign, which it claims form the basis of the alleged Contract between Claimant and Defendant which is in any case disputed, is not clearly visible from the parking space (as explicitly required by Section 13b of its alleged contract with the Landlord: “All signs … will be positioned so that at least one sign is visible and legible from anywhere that a vehicle could park on the site …” ([Defendant’s emphasis] 

Upon Subject Access Request the Claimant provided to the Defendant a high-resolution photograph of the nearest sign taken from the parking space, but even with “zooming” using specialist imaging software, the wording cannot be made out from this image, and therefore obviously could not have been “legible” from the parking space.   The Claimant helpfully acknowledged this illegibility by sending an additional close-up image of a similar sign, taken at another time, so that the wording can be determined. 

Coupon-mad

You say "the OPS" sign but of course I might struggle to demonstrate that the sign at the site in question in July 2017 was the same size as in your pic.   I suppose I could claim that yours is a "standard" OPS sign and leave them to prove that the one in situ was different ...?

Believe us, because we've seen them all, it is a standard OPS sign!

valiant24

Sure, but how best to introduce it as evidence in a Hearing?

Coupon-mad

It will be an exhibit appended to your WS.

In prep for the hearing, make notes planning the line of attack, which might be:

- unclear signs: point to your exhibits and talk the Judge through it, 
- predatory ticketing - point to their evidence (usually PCN issued in 3 minutes flat, no grace period)
- landowner authority (whatever me and ParkingMad spot about that document...give us a couple of days)
- template WS from OPS, usually full of holes and mistakes and no substance to narrow the issues,
- no WS from whoever issued the PCN on the windscreen (or was it photo upload and a postal PCN?)
- point to the misleading debt collector letters, how aggressive they were/the sum changed with each letter
- added £60 = abuse of process: point Judge to exhibits: Britannia v Crosby and OPS v Mrs W (Lewes)
- OPS might offer to drop the £60 = that throws the £100 under the bus, if so!
- finally when you win, ask for costs at £19 per hour pursuant to CPR 46.5.(4)(b) and list the 'unreasonableness'.

End!

valiant24

Useful list, thanks.
As things stand, top of my list will be my primary defence - that my granddaughter had a right to park one car at the premises under her Leasehold, which right has primacy over any agreement that the RTM may have made with the PPC.  

Coupon-mad

Yep, that is a point for a case like yours.  My list was generic!