CPM poor signage - claim form

SlashDot

1505grandad said:

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.

Thank you @1505grandad. I amended to refer to the correct CoP and your other corrections.

SlashDot

Coupon-mad said:

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. 

Thanks for the feedback and guidance @Coupon-mad. I've added in a section at the beginning.

SlashDot

Evening all. I've updated my Witness Statement and would appreciate your thoughts/comments. I've taken the afternoon off work tomorrow to ensure I can get the pack all put together in time for the filing deadline. Thanks again for the support to date.

1505grandad

Your first post says:-

"The Driver in a company car parked in a private car park in Jun-18"

you should therefore be quoting from IPC CoP  V6 dated from 1st April 2017

however I believe you are quoting IPC CoP V7 which is from 11/2019

Coupon-mad

Once you have checked and quoted from the right CoP, that WS makes a lot more sense for what might be a difficult case from the start when the Judge firstly looks at their evidence of a car near a sign.  This is your best line of defence/witness statement IMHO.

However,  you have entirely missed out the usual section, designed to save you £60 or more if you lose, all about the added fake costs.  This is as shown in the WS I wrote for @painbl recently, that you can copy from.  It's the whole lower section about added false costs and the Semark-Jullien case, and the Somerfield and Beavis decisions (DO NOT APPEND THOSE AS THEY ARE COURT OF APPEAL AND SUPREME COURT SO NO NEED)

Fruitcake

With regards to the contract, I suggest you include the following in your WS.

The contract fails the requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore is not a valid contract.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures have been redacted and therefore you require the scammers to prove they are actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid because the PPC did not have a valid contract with the landowner or authority to manage the site. 

Additionally, in case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020, District Judge Simon Middleton stated that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner." Your case is no different. The unidentified proprietor signatory cannot have signed the contract on behalf of the landowner because there is no proof that he or she was a director of the landowner.

Furthermore, in the case of Hancock vs Promontaria (Chestnut) Limited the Appeal Court found that a "document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...

Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision..."

A link to the thread including a pdf of the judgement can be found here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure/p1

It is therefore incumbent on the claimant to present the whole contract unredacted before the court. Since the above case was an Appeal Court hearing, it is persuasive on the lower courts.

SlashDot

1505grandad said:

Your first post says:-

"The Driver in a company car parked in a private car park in Jun-18"

you should therefore be quoting from IPC CoP  V6 dated from 1st April 2017

however I believe you are quoting IPC CoP V7 which is from 11/2019

Thanks @1505grandad - I would never have spotted that. Adjusted my quotes and the references.

SlashDot

Coupon-mad said:

Once you have checked and quoted from the right CoP, that WS makes a lot more sense for what might be a difficult case from the start when the Judge firstly looks at their evidence of a car near a sign.  This is your best line of defence/witness statement IMHO.

However,  you have entirely missed out the usual section, designed to save you £60 or more if you lose, all about the added fake costs.  This is as shown in the WS I wrote for @painbl recently, that you can copy from.  It's the whole lower section about added false costs and the Semark-Jullien case, and the Somerfield and Beavis decisions (DO NOT APPEND THOSE AS THEY ARE COURT OF APPEAL AND SUPREME COURT SO NO NEED)

Great, thanks @Coupon-mad. I've added in the section on fake costs.

SlashDot

Latest WS attached. Just working on the evidence and references then I will post to GS later today for delivery tomorrow (no email address provided in any of their correspondence, so don't want to risk using the wrong one).

KeithP

Google gladstones solicitors email address.

Never ever send anything to a parking company or their solicitors using any service that requires a signature upon receipt. All that does is give them the opportunity to refuse to sign, and thus refuse delivery.