UKCPM Claim form received - Allocated Space/Access By KeyFob

Johnersh

Well if it was a fake permit it wouldn't be... But since they've helpfully confirmed it's not, I agree that there is no loss and substantial compliance (if not full). Indeed there's scope for the court to strike Cs case as having no prospects, not least because C are an record as a no show, but they probably won't. 

dspan156

Firstly thank you all for your input thus far, it is greatly appreciated!

I have created the below crib sheet in preparation for tomorrow's hearing

1. De Minimis principle - my vehicle was clearly displaying the only valid parking permit on my persons and my vehicle was parked in the correct bay 170	1. Claimants exhibit pictures of car and visible permit (pages 77 & 78) 2. Exhibit DD02 (page 101) 3. Exhibit DD11 (page 102)
2.  No part of the claimant’s statement disputes that I was not displaying a valid permit - on the contrary, they confirm I was issued with one.	1. Claimants WS page 7 paragraph 35
3. Jack chapman says the warden was unable to confirm it was a valid permit because…  Only the warden can say what she/he believes. Jack chapman cannot positively say why the PCN was issued.	1. Claimants WS page 2 paragraph 8
4. 1. The signage was unclear and offered no contract or parking license of value. Note, The claimants parking restrictions sign does not say the holographic P must be displayed together with the site name, as claimed by Jack Chapman.	1. Claimants exhibit of sign not numbered (page 69) 2.Claimants WS page 2 paragraph 8
5. Primacy of contract - I was authorised to park throughout my tenancy at the property. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits.	1. Exhibit DD01 Tenancy agreement (page 100 paragraph 3, point b) 2. exhibit DD03 Pace vs Mr N 3. exhibit DD05
6. Abuse of process - UKCPM have added £60 that breaches the CRA, POFA and Supreme court case law.''	1. Exhibit DD08 Britannia vs Crosby (Southampton) 2.
7. The claimant has appended a redacted ‘landowner contract’ which offends against the rules of evidence. The signatures could be from anyone.	1. Exhibit DD07 Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) 2. Exhibit DD09 Parking eye vs Somerfield (para 419)
8. Rebut - claimant trying to mislead me and the court with a citation of Elliott v Loake which has already been held on appeal to be 'improper' in a parking case.

dspan156

Winner!!
Gladstones were a no show, I won on the grounds that there was full compliance on my part, the car was parked where it was supposed to be and the permit was visible.
Thank you all for your help and guidance 

Redx

Well done , UKCPM and Gladrags lose again

Another one bites the dust !!

You should sue them now for say £300

twhitehousescat

its about time gladrags were sanctioned by the court service , lets start by handing down say £10,000 for no shows without note from mummy 

they are realy taking the $iss out of UK court system 
how long will court service put up with this 

beamerguy

dspan156 said:

Winner!!
Gladstones were a no show, I won on the grounds that there was full compliance on my part, the car was parked where it was supposed to be and the permit was visible.
Thank you all for your help and guidance 

Well done ..... Gladstones letting their client down yet again ... NO SHOW INCOMPETENCE

Gladstones must realise that they take the most ridiculous of claims to court.  Wonder if they ever think that the scam they set up as the IPC has now become a joke 

UKCPM must have guts and Suicidal Tendencies

twhitehousescat

beamerguy said:

dspan156 said:

Winner!!
Gladstones were a no show, I won on the grounds that there was full compliance on my part, the car was parked where it was supposed to be and the permit was visible.
Thank you all for your help and guidance 

Well done ..... Gladstones letting their client down yet again ... NO SHOW INCOMPETENCE

Gladstones must realise that they take the most ridiculous of claims to court.  Wonder if they ever think that the scam they set up as the IPC has now become a joke 

UKCPM must have guts and Suicidal Tendencies

3rd rate robo solisitors and a £50 note forthe courts 
a good gamble , hoping that op may have been held up in traffic

nosferatu1001

Congrats! Did you get your costs paid?

Coupon-mad

Well done!
Another UKCPM one bites the dust!

Johnersh

As it should be. Even the bay number was visible on the permit. 

The concept of getting a third party to say what was in a ticket inspectors mind when he issued a ticket to a car displaying a permit is just plainly offensive. 

Tell me that you made gladstones write a cheque... That's the fun bit!