Gladstones/LPS - County Court Claim

pkul01

Thanks Coupon-mad
Will make the changes you suggested.
On the letter they say was sent is deemed delivered. My comment is that any PPC could say they sent the letter, the NTK, but in reality they didn't. So as stated at #52, POFA para 9 (5) says NTK has to be given by "...handing it to the keeper...." or "...sending it by post..." within "...14 days …." Since this is part of the compliance with POFA, the PPC must have proof of postage/receipt as well as the copy of the NTK as they provided with their WS.
 I am not arguing that the wording of the NTK is not compliant with POFA.
If "sent" is deemed as "delivered" then perhaps I need to remove points #49 to #54.

pkul01

Hello Coupon-mad
You said:
"Assume it will go ahead as a telephone hearing and make sure he meets the deadline.
Are you going to speak for him as his lay rep on the phone, as long as he rings in as well?  Are you more confident about putting his case properly, including why they can't add £60 (due to the POFA, Beavis case and CRA 2015?)."
I plan to draft a COVID-19 covering email like you suggested previously and send that to the Court asking for a hearing once the Courts are open.  It will be difficult to have a hearing by telephone; especially as we will be calling by mobile phones and right now with social distancing and everyone slowly returning to work, with vast majority still working from home, the connections may well be poor and likely to break. My father will not be able to follow things well or even be able to call up again.


I would be his lay rep and this would be far better done in a face-face hearing. Yes, I am confident of putting his case properly as I have the WS and especially it documents why the £60 charge cannot be added.

Coupon-mad

If "sent" is deemed as "delivered" 

It is, in law, under the Interpretations Act.  No-one has to prove a letter was sent.

pkul01

Thanks Coupon-mad.
Part of the defence was no keeper liability. Since Claimant does not have to prove they sent NTK (when they hadn't in my father's case), then this part of the defence is negated.
Perhaps I should remove the points relating to providing proof or leave them in and let them argue against them.

I have looked at the facebook page and saw a couple of recent postings about this car park - in Feb 2020:

"I have never used this carpark, but today I received a penalty notice, showing me driving in at 10.51 am on 8th February and driving out at 17.37. I will have gone there to pick up a paper, had a busy day, then popped in to Tesco's for further supplies later on. If they have pic of me entering the first time and exiting the second time, how come they don't have a the other two respective exiting and entering pictures? This is such a scam - and will be fought, of course!"
And in Jan-2020:
"WARNING to everyone using their pay and display carpark. YOU MUST KEEP YOUR TICKETS, SO WHEN YOU GET A PARKING FINE, EVEN THOUGH YOU PAID, YOU HAVE THE PROOF, BECAUSE THEY'RE SENDING OUT FINES EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE PAID......…"
These I will add to the WS as well as the two you gave previously.

Le_Kirk

pkul01 said:

I have looked at the Facebook page and saw a couple of recent postings about this car park - in Feb 2020:

"I have never used this car park, but today I received a penalty notice, showing me driving in at 10.51 am on 8th February and driving out at 17.37. I will have gone there to pick up a paper, had a busy day, then popped in to Tesco's for further supplies later on. If they have pic of me entering the first time and exiting the second time, how come they don't have a the other two respective exiting and entering pictures? This is such a scam - and will be fought, of course!"

Yep, the well-known double dipping ( a forum expression).

pkul01

Also, I went to the Tesco Express 30 mins free car park and took these photos that clearly show there is no barrier or gate separately the "30mins Free car park area" from the "LPS operated chargeable area). You can see there is only one solitary sign. This sign cannot be seen or read clearly by a driver as they drive from the free car park to the LPS operated area
I took a video travelling at slow speed to see if this sign can be read - especially the £100 charge.Even though its only 15 seconds longs, I cannot attach here even after compressing it.
This is further evidence that the signage on "entry" to the car park is not clear and therefore adds to the confusion as to free and chargeable areas of the car park.

Coupon-mad

 Very good evidence.  If the driver has read and/or is familiar with the Tesco car park sign (offering 30 mins free) is is unreasonable to expect him/her to then read all the other signs in what appears to be the same car park, just to check they are no being scammed in a notorious trap.

Also, one wonders why their evidence photo/aerial view goes into such detail and points out the free Tesco car park area that joins theirs.  Clearly this is a map they made earlier and they are protesting too much...it's obvious what they are doing!

Part of the defence was no keeper liability. Since Claimant does not have to prove they sent NTK (when they hadn't in my father's case), then this part of the defence is negated.

Why are posters here so keen to drop points entirely?! The keeper still says that the NTK was never served, but in addition, the keeper must look at the para 9 wording in Sch 4 of the POFA and find (if they can) that the wording is not compliant with the only law that possibly enables them to claim keeper liability.  

It was never mainly about whether the NTK was received or not.  It's always 'was a fully POFA compliant NTK received?' 

(a) ''fully compliant wording?  yes or no? 
(b) ''received?'' No.

pkul01

Thanks Coupon-mad.....will take another look this evening.

Fruitcake

Print the lay reps right of audience in case the judge asks about it during the telephone hearing. Item 3 is the relevant part.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Have you been sent a copy of the alleged contract with the landowner? If so, please show it to us. If they haven't supplied it then you attack their right issue charges as they haven't proved they have locus standi which was in your defence.

Johnersh

Fwiw, the witness statement served from the PPC in this case:

1. Does NOT append the contract granting authority between the PPC and landowner
2. Does append a witness statement from 2017 which appears to have been prepared for some other case
3. It is not clear Gladstones or the claimant have the permission of the witness, Ms Read to "re-use" her 2017 statement in this way
4. Ms Read is no longer a director of the landowners company
5. There appears therefore to be no primary evidence that the contract was at the time or still is in force. 

Make of that what you will...