CPM poor signage - claim form

Johnersh

The parking contract is defective inmho. The contracting church is not a limited company but an unincorporated association. 

To be valid ALL of the trustees of the church would need to sign or, if there are no trustees, potentially the entire congregation at the applicable time, who would then be jointly and severally tied to the terms (presumably in perpetuity) until they end. That's as undesirable as it sounds. 

Even if I'm wrong in that, the signage appears to be different to the contract. Signs stating "permit holders only" (as required by the contract) arguably exclude - it offers no parking contract to anyone without already possessing one.

In order to succeed here, Ukcpm need to establish they were entitled to offer parking to *everyone* and impose a penalty to those failing to display a permit.

The two are actually quite different, since the latter potentially is to invite third parties on to the land, whereas the former is not (and presumably not the intention). 

Coupon-mad

The above is what the WS needs to say, plus the argument that displaying a permit was void for impossibility.

Not the doomed story of going to the cinema.

Castle

Johnersh said:

The parking contract is defective inmho. The contracting churcg is not a limited company but an unincorporated association. 

To be valid ALL of the trustees of the church would need to sign or, if there are no trustees, potentially the entire congregation at the applicable time, who would then be jointly and severally tied to the terms (presumably in perpetuity) until they end. That's as undesirable as it sounds. 

Quite; I doubt that an unincorporated association has the legal ability to own land anyway.

Johnersh

Quite; I doubt that an unincorporated association has the legal ability to own land anyway.
Oh it does, but you *never* want to be a part of it as it just gets really messy. Certainly you'd want a schedule of members names attached for clarity/certainty. I mean, it's obviously challenging where the contract is one in perpetuity🙄😁

For that reason lots clubs and churches incorporate or have a linked holding company. I digress... 

SlashDot

Coupon-mad said:

Where is their landowner authority?  The contract with the landowner?  We need to see that.

Why cover up Jack Chapman's signature, this is something you should be attacking, as per all the hundreds of UKCPM Jack Chapman threads!

Why have you moved away from the protection of the POFA, given you were the hirer lessee?  You have admitted to driving in the WS, which is usually a good idea, but in your case you were a hirer/lessee and they won't have complied with para 13 and 14 of the POFA, because the NTH won't have enclosed the documents the law requires.

I am saying the above because I think you are in danger of losing if you write that you parked and went over the road and to the cinema for nearly 3 hours - this is 'fly parking' and Judges will not be on your side.  Playing Devil's Advocate (and to tell you the truth) I would never have parked in a private car park to jaunt over the road to somewhere completely different - sorry to say but on what planet do drivers think that is OK - just because they never got 'done' before?

The Judge will look at what you did and see the sign near the car in their photos, and the fact the bay has a number in it so it clearly has a purpose for someone, and you could be on a sticky wicket here without the POFA and the 'void for impossibility' argument...unless it was dark and the sign was not able to be seen (clearly not, due to the evidence photos).

I wasn't sure of the legalities of leaving the signatures in tbh. Not Chapman on mine, but Alexandra Morrison - who I've seen mentioned elsewhere on this forum.
I admitted to driving in my defence so would POFA protections still be relevant to my case? Apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree, I know I've been told to hone my defence around the Defective Contract and Void for Impossibility.
I don't disagree with your last comments @Coupon-mad - stupid of me to say the least. I had a brainwave and checked my Google timeline given that the day in question was a while ago...it wasn't a cinema trip after all, but I had parked up for c50mins to visit nearby shops. Still doesn't improve the argument though  

SlashDot

Johnersh said:

That statement contains no evidence at all. It has nothing that is within the personal knowledge of the statement maker. It refers throughout to "my company refer the court"

Contrary to what appears at para 1, no effort is made at any point to discern who did what or how those sources of information were derived - e.g. Who took the photo?

It's a generic statement even the exhibit GSL1 reflects the origin gladstones Solicitors Ltd, not the statement maker. 

What confidence can the court have in a statement where the maker has amended the relevant declaration from "I believe the facts are true" to "the claimant believes". Why change that, unless there is reason to do so. It either contains information the maker is not content with or which he cannot personally verify. You are entitled to know which.

Further if he's not attending to clarify, then I'd suggest it's unsafe to rely upon it. It would be entirely possible to prepare that statement properly or to call evidence from the employees involved (those photographing or sending tickets etc) it is their choice not to. 

Thanks @Johnersh, I see what the changes implied mean now. Is this something to mention in the WS or bring up in the Hearing instead?

SlashDot

nosferatu1001 said:

Its not your job to worry about their contract.  You only concern yourself with YOUR data. Nothing else. 

Have you checked the company names are correct, its valid, the site is exactly as you would expect, etc. DO your own diligence. 

Thanks @nosferatu1001. They're not on Companies House as expected given their type of ownership, I could only find:
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Ftrustees&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_LIFERAY_SHARED_backToSearch=https%3A%2F%2Fregister-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk%2Fcharity-search%3Fp_p_id%3Duk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet%26amp%3Bp_p_lifecycle%3D1%26amp%3Bp_p_state%3Dnormal%26amp%3Bp_p_mode%3Dview%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_cur%3D1%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_delta%3D20%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_keywords%3Dunitarian%2Bnew%2Bmeeting%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_orderByCol%3D%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_orderByType%3Dasc%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_priv_r_p_prevCol%3D%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_priv_r_p_useSession%3Dtrue%26amp%3B_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName%3D%252Fsearch-results&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_organisationNumber=3962207

Also, the address in the contract for the site refers only to the street, city and postcode - no number so Google Maps doesn't bring up the location of the car park. So, although the church address is correct, perhaps I could argue that the site address is not?

SlashDot

Evening all. I've attached the latest version of my WS - which focuses on the Defective Contract and Void for Impossibility arguments.
I've been trying to find similar cases for Defective Contract, but have not come up with anything as of yet and I don't think this section is up to scratch. Can anyone point me towards something I could refer to?
Really appreciate the support from everyone to date. I want to try and file everything by Thursday afternoon, so further comments would be very much appreciated so that I can get it done in time.

Coupon-mad

I saw the word 'important' that should have read 'importance'.

And the heading about 'permit void for impossibility' should be:  'The contract requiring a permit was void for impossibility'.

I do think you should briefly start by saying your defence is repeated and that you were the driver (because you already admitted that in defence) but that no contract was entered into and no signs were seen because of the broken sign hidden by foliage (expand on that, where was the broken sign, was it meant to be at the entrance?).  You could say you had used this car park before, as did lots of local shoppers, and saw nothing to draw attention to any changes. 

Due to the lack of entrance sign, a driver could not have known they were expected to seek out terms and you wonder if there was in fact a car in front of the low sign shown on the left in their evidence, because it simply wasn't seen.  Use Vine v Waltham Forest as an exhibit and point out that Miss Vine won, because it was found as fact that she was in  a car park where she had no idea she should seek out signs, and as a matter of fact, like you, she saw none. 

1505grandad

Para 6  -  "6. Referring to the judgment Pace vs Lengyel C7GF6E3R [judgement]........"

no middle "e" in the second word "Judgment"

Para 8  -  "...........8.  International Parking (Committee’s)......

should be (Community's)

Para 9  -  "8.  the concept of fairness requires the parking firm to comply with the requirements of the relevance code of practice, being either the British Parking Association’s code or the International Parking Committee’s code." - (from P8)

"9. Paragraph 28.1 of the (former) provides......"

claimant is IPC AoS member so should the be (latter)  -  and you have also quoted the BPA CoP in P9

Have not checked anymore so please make sure P10 etc are quoting the correct CoP.