County Court Defence against Gladstone+UKCPM advice needed!!!

swooshy

Link to the actual WS and the landowner contract
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ma9w1ngrgwvvu6w/Claimant pack.pdf?dl=0
Let me know if anything else is needed
Thanks

Coupon-mad

He has misquoted from Vine twice (repeating the same quote in two places) pretending that those were the findings of Roch LJ but they were not!  He was merely summarising the failed party's cases in that section and Miss Vine actually won, as has already been said!

Then he says:

In the VCS case, Judge Saffman found at paragraph 52 the following:

Errrrrm, which 'VCS case' would that be then, given he hasn't said anything before it about VCS v Crutchley (which we know, is the idiotic and fatally, famously stupid and wrong finding by HHJ Saffman)?!  Has he appended Crutchly as an exhibit?

Who are Cushman & Wakefield?  The site's agents?  They appear not to be a landholder:

https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-kingdom/people

Being a property agent is not sufficient standing to show that any authority flows from the landowner!

swooshy

Coupon-mad said:

He has misquoted from Vine twice (repeating the same quote in two places) pretending that those were the findings of Roch LJ but they were not!  He was merely summarising the failed party's cases in that section and Miss Vine actually won, as has already been said!

Then he says:

In the VCS case, Judge Saffman found at paragraph 52 the following:

Errrrrm, which 'VCS case' would that be then, given he hasn't said anything before it about VCS v Crutchley (which we know, is the idiotic and fatally, famously stupid and wrong finding by HHJ Saffman)?!  Has he appended Crutchly as an exhibit?

Who are Cushman & Wakefield?  The site's agents?  They appear not to be a landholder:

https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-kingdom/people

Being a property agent is not sufficient standing to show that any authority flows from the landowner!

Cushman and Wakefield appear to be a an international commercial real esate provider. I was searching for a planning application relevant to the site. I found the following document which may be relevant.

https://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/viewDocument?file=dv_pl_files\3114_APP_2019_3829\Planning+Statement+.pdf&module=pl

The introductory paragraph in this document reads as follows:

"On behalf of our client, DTZi, Cushman and Wakefield have been requested to submit a section 73to remove Condition 6of decision 3114/APP/2012/2881, in order to remove the restriction on the hours of operation currently imposed at Trade City Business Park, Cowley Mill Road, Uxbridge, UB8 2DB."

DTZi is a Real Estate Manager.

Apologies for my ignorance on this subject matter; would the above information suggest that Cushman and Wakefield are not a landholder, and therefore the Claimant has no authority to pursue this case?

Is there anything else I can do to find out who the landowner is?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Yes that is good evidence that Cushman are not the landholder.  Pop it into your exhibits.    Clearly this is an agent agreeing with an agent to put some signs up and make money, but neither are a landowner with title or standing.

swooshy

Thanks for the invaluable insight Coupon-mad.

Reading the document that I have linked in my last post, I found this on page 7:

"The appeal decision approved the entire trade park which has since been built out in two phases and sold to two seperate owners, Kier (Phase 1) and DTZi (Phase2). This enquiry only relates to Phase 2 of the development."

...

The actual Court Claim form that I recieved, reads under 'Particulars of Claim':

"The driver of the vehicle with registration xxx xxx (the "Vehicle") parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Kier Park - Cowley Mill Road Uxbridge Greater London UB8 2GG."

I am therefore assuming that "Kier" are the actual landowners.

Coupon-mad

Sounds reasonable.

swooshy

I have made an addition to the WS with regards to the claimant having no authority to pursue parking charges. This is now under section 2 of the WS.

I had a few questions to ask if thats okay.

Bearing in mind the court date is set for 14/8/20...

Today, I am going to email (enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk) the:

- signed witness statement

- exhibits and schedule of costs to Gladstones who are acting on behalf of the Claimant (UKCPM)

Gladtsones said this is okay to do when I called them

I will hand deliver printed documents (signed WS, exhibits, schedule of costs) directly to Reading County Court today. 

^^^

1) Will this suffice? 

Secondly, the defendant in this case is not an English speaker. The interpreter will be her son. On enquiring about this, the court emailed back...

"In regards to your son interpreting for you, that should be fine as it is down the parties to organise their own interpreters on civil cases."

The letter about the court hearing states 

"If a witness is unable to read the statement in the form produced to the court, the statement must include a

certificate that it has been read or interpreted to the witness by a suitably qualified person. If a witness who

has made a statement is to give evidence or be cross-examined and is unable to do so in spoken English (or

Welsh if the hearing is in Wales), the party relying on that witness must ensure that a suitable independent

interpreter is available."

Considering this, I have amended 1.2 in the WS 

"1.2 I can confirm that this statement has been read to me in my native language. I confirm that I understand and agree with the contents of this statement. 

I may not be able to read the statement in form produced as English is not my primary language."

2) Is this okay?

3) Is there anything else I should do at this stage with regards to the WS or otherwise?

Coupon-mad

All looks okay to me.

Fruitcake

For a few pounds you can buy a copy of the Land Registry entry. This will provide definitive proof as to the identity of the landowner.
You could also contact Kier and ask them if they own the land in question.
Knowing the identity of the landowner is why I asked about seeing the scammer's WS and exhibits when you get it. We want to see with whom the alleged contract has been made. 

For the hearing, will the interpreter also be acting for the defendant as well as translating? If so, or if someone else is acting for the defendant, print off a copy of the Lay Representative's Right of Audience.
The lay rep can speak and answer questions as if they were an untrained lawyer, but the defendant must be present.

Have you checked with the local planning department to see if planning permission was ever granted for ANPR scameras (if used) and advertising consent for signs? Not having the latter is a criminal offence as it breaches the Town and Country Planning Act, but only the council can pursue it.

This is only minor compared with the rest of the defence, but everything that puts the scammers in a bad light will help.

swooshy

Hi all,

I have recieved yet another WS from Gladstones in reponse to the Defendant WS. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r1dwd8mjmo4pdf8/New CWS.pdf?dl=0

...

They have now attached some photos encircling repeater signs on google street view - some of these screenshots are not relevant as they do not reflect the photos taken by the claimant at the time.

In the photos they provided of the vehicle, the backgrounds shows a large portion of the site appears to have been cordoned off by concrete barriers. 

This prevents access or clear sight of some of these repeater signs.

...

Additonally, they have attached a letter headed with Strathclyde Pension Fund Office...

The letter references 'above property' - there is no property detailed on this letter.

In my opinion, the Claimant still has not proven landowner authority. 

The particulars of the claim read Kier park.

The agreement on the contract between alleged landowner and claimant reads Kier Park .

There is no evidence provided that Kier is owned by Cushman and Wakefield.

The only address linked to the UB8 2GG postcode on the land registry website is Uxbridge Delivery Office

The new evidence provided by the Claimant does not mention Kier Park. It  does not mention the site of the incident.

In fact the document provided shows the the Claimant is acting on behalf of a property agent rather than a landowner.

As previously mentioned, a planning Application relevant to the site from November 2019 clearly states on Page 7 that the entire business park has been sold to two separate owners, Kier (Phase 1) and DTZi (Phase 2).

The new evidence provided by the claimant is from August 2017.

...

They have also mentioned in their additional CWS in para 16 "to park on a roadway wherebey the same is restrieced, the parking is not permitted." This is prohibitive language in my opinion which does not lend itself to the basis of a contract.

...

I would be grateful for your thoughts.

The hearing is in 2 days.

Thanks.