Gladstone taking me court

Coupon-mad

https://goo.gl/maps/NC68ZMiuDwy8BgzS8

No upright entrance sign, and if you swivel the view round, Pelling St has Council signage. And the only GSV image shows this from 2012:

https://goo.gl/maps/qD34qQ3VUDdyCzPZA

However, if you look up the Tower Hamets Parking interactive map and put in 'Pelling' or 'Farrance':
https://towerhamlets.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d7f235a8743f44bb86e2b2ef46743d8f

...it shows the COUNCIL enforcement boundary goes much further than it's been painted and that estate road at a T junction where Pelling meets Farrance, is Council enforced (see yellow markings in the map which go past Michin House...).  Looks to me like UKCPM have put signs up and painted 'estate road' where they shouldn't.  This is a REALLY important point to make and to use that Tower Hamlets map as evidence, and to understand that a Traffic Order makes the boundary, not the signs and lines that can be wrongly painted. 

The Order has to be taken to show the correct lawful boundary, because that's the statutory instrument.


No sign of any 'repeater signs' either so their reference to VCS v Ward and VCS v Idle is irrelevant to this case.   Is there just one pic of that faded & illegible sign, or have they attached a load more pics of signs?
  
She's mentioned ParkingEye v Somerfield so make sure your WS responds to that the cites it too:

(para number).  In the pre-Beavis case in ParkingEye v Somerfield at [419], the High Court held: ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  Bailii link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para419

(para number).  This Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, a cynical attempt to go behind the Beavis case paragraphs 98 193 and 198, all of which confirm that their Lordships held that the construction of a parking charge that is not unconscionable 'must' already include the operational costs of the regime. Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that following their High Court case in Somerfield, and as was seen in Beavis, ParkingEye do not add false ‘debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

(para number).   The POFA at Section 4(5) also states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100.  This Claimant and their legal representatives undoubtedly knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charge’ claim is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA.  Several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum that clearly represents double recovery and a serious abuse of the court process.

Fruitcake

So this is a "beach" of contract case, for failing to comply with Ts and Cs of signs attached "wot" the wall. Perhaps they should employ a couple of ten year olds to proof read their bumf.

OP, do you know who the landowner is and do you have a copy of the alleged contract with or flowing from the landowner that you can show us?

Coupon-mad

See above, it's Council land...!  They are operating outside of the private land.

Fruitcake

Then it's even more important to get a copy of the landowner contract, and a statement from the council to say it is under their statutory control in order to show that the WS is not true.

henrik777

beamerguy said:

Alexandra Morrison is not shown so must  be a low key worker, not important but can sign witness statements. ??

All those employed, well for the moment, just imagine so many making money from a scam..  And with so many legal administrators, why on earth are they dealing with the incompetent Gladstones ??

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.2

27.2

(1) The following Parts of these Rules do not apply to small claims –

(a) Part 25 (interim remedies) except as it relates to interim injunctions(GL);

(b) Part 31 (disclosure and inspection);

(c) Part 32 (evidence) except rule 32.1 (power of court to control evidence);

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32/pd_part32#witness

WITNESS STATEMENTS

Heading

17.1 The witness statement 

So normal witness statement rules do not apply.

What does cpr 27 say ?

Not much. So it's up to the court with no hard and fast rules. The whole premise of small claims track is cheap, cheerful and quick so it makes sense to be somewhat informal.

However as we sometimes see, some courts do take in to account various factors and attach appropriate weight to what is said within the witness statement. Very rarely does who made the statement become an issue unless someone compiles a "Jack Chapman" dossier and a judge is suitably interested. (rare)

beamerguy

So it's up to the court with no hard and fast rules. The whole premise of small claims track is cheap, cheerful and quick so it makes sense to be somewhat informal. However as we sometimes see, some courts do take in to account various factors and attach appropriate weight to what is said within the witness statement. Very rarely does who made the statement become an issue unless someone compiles a "Jack Chapman" dossier and a judge is suitably interested. (rare)

I hear what you say and very much reflective to the recent Port Talbot case

As coupon-mad says, more complaints should be made against parking companies and as judges make plenty of errors, then complaints against them should be made.  No point in laws and a new CPR if they are ignored.

Take Robert Jenrick MP whose task it is for the new code of practice.  Doubt he gives a monkeys toss, just as he does not give a toss about self isolation and claiming £100k of tax payers money on his second home. I mean we pay for idiots like this ???

So we have to fight, the parking companies, the hell raiser dodgy legals and judges. Those who don't complain can only blame themselves

D_P_Dance

I claiming that something is true in a WS when it is not, i.e. that an unlawful sum is reasonable, and therefore lawful, a contempt of court?

henrik777

It is.
Bit of a problem getting that passed if some judges still allow it though as they'll just say their belief was reasonable based upon that. Added to the fact contempt proceedings on garbage in a witness statement seem to be rare .....

Anyway, i try to help people win in the battle against their ticket. i'm not a campaigner.

beamerguy

henrik777 said:

It is.
Bit of a problem getting that passed if some judges still allow it though as they'll just say their belief was reasonable based upon that. Added to the fact contempt proceedings on garbage in a witness statement seem to be rare .....

Anyway, i try to help people win in the battle against their ticket. i'm not a campaigner.

Will judges then ignore the new CPR as of the 6th April 2020

henrik777

That's my belief

.beamerguy said:

henrik777 said:

It is.
Bit of a problem getting that passed if some judges still allow it though as they'll just say their belief was reasonable based upon that. Added to the fact contempt proceedings on garbage in a witness statement seem to be rare .....

Anyway, i try to help people win in the battle against their ticket. i'm not a campaigner.

Will judges then ignore the new CPR as of the 6th April 2020