Gladstones/LPS - County Court Claim

Fruitcake

Further to the above, the witness statement makes no mention of the landowner authorising the scammers to issue court claims.
The date on Ms Read's witness statement is not contemporary with that of the alleged event and predates it by eight months.

pkul01

Coupon-mad, you said:
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? - Unfortunately, the wording is compliant (assuming the initial PCN is the NTK)
(b) ''received?'' No. - Correct, it was not received.
Fruitcake - thanks, I had already printed the lay rep order as a backup. The Claimant's WS had another witness statement dated 28 August 2017 by the landowner (a Director) confirming the Claimant had the authority of the landowner to "....undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site."
However, Johnersh makes good points, the key being:
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. 
Point 4 - When I looked at this last night, according to Companies House, Ms Read resigned as Director on 01 May 2019. Point 5 of this Director's witness statement said "This authority is contained in an agreement dated 15 June 2017 running from 15 June 2017 for one year followed by a further 3 years with a 3 month period for cancellation." I thought the agreement is still in force as the Claimant was the operator that issued the parking charge in April 2018 that my father is fighting.

However, the Claim was filed 11 November 2019 with this Director's witness statement dated 28 August 2017.  As Johnersh says in his point 3, Gladstones/Claimant have not provided evidence showing that they can "re-use" Ms Read's witness statement.

Ms Read's witness statement - referred to at point 6 of the Claimant's WS as "...an agreement dated the 28/08/2017, the same having chosen to restrict parking on the land that they manage and enforce parking on the land in question.  A copy of this agreement is attached herewith." 

In this Claim filed 11 November 2019, with Ms Read having resigned as Director of the landowner 
01 May 2019, Ms Read's witness statement i.e. the "agreement" dated the 28/08/2017" as referred to by Claimant is invalid as she is not a Director. Hence, the Claimant has not proved locus standi.
Maybe I am not being clear in which case I apologise.
The question is by filing my father's WS and evidence (with the above comments) 14 days prior to the hearing date 03 June 2020 (if it still goes ahead), can the Claimant file a new "agreement"?

Coupon-mad

No, they won't have time to scrabble around and get it, let alone bung it in last minute - and if they did you could object and ask for the late submissions to be disregarded by the court.

If you are certain that the NTK has 9(2)f correctly stated (exactly) then maybe it's a POFA NTK.

Umkomaas

This is a notorious site from a few years ago. Loads of court claims lodged by Private Parking Security (London), each one dismissed, but it didn't stop them issuing more!

In terms of the leaseholder, Parking Prankster ran a blog about (I'm pretty sure) this site in 2017 and makes reference to Greene King Brewery being the leaseholder. The blog doesn't specifically name the site, but this snippet might give you something to do some further digging. 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/10/funding-appeal-to-get-civil-restraint.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/video-of-private-parking-solutions.html

Castle

Umkomaas said:

This is a notorious site from a few years ago. Loads of court claims lodged by Private Parking Security (London), each one dismissed, but it didn't stop them issuing more!

In terms of the leaseholder, Parking Prankster ran a blog about (I'm pretty sure) this site in 2017 and makes reference to Greene King Brewery being the leaseholder. The blog doesn't specifically name the site, but this snippet might give you something to do some further digging. 

Probably explains why I can't find any land being owned by the company in their annual accounts for Ashford Antique Centre Ltd, (Company No 8303737), at Companies House.

(I wonder who actually gets to keep the P&D income?)

pkul01

Coupon-mad:
"If you are certain that the NTK has 9(2)f correctly stated (exactly) then maybe it's a POFA NTK. "
I have seen other NTKs from another PPC and found that it explicitly states "Notice to Keeper" in the heading(s). The initial PCN issued by Claimant in April 2018 - but not received is attached here. I am only going by paragraph 4 where it says "If you are not the keeper..." and assuming this is their NTK.
Looking at 9(2)a regarding "....relevant land..", the PCN states "...at Ashford Car Park - ANPR" but does not give exact address.
However, the "agreement" (The landowner's Director's WS dated 28 August 2017) states "1. The site is at Ashford Car Park, 4 Church Road, Ashford. TW15 2UT".
There is another car park in Ashford, less than 0.25mile in Church Lane, Ashford. TW15 2TY. Both can be referred to as Ashford Car Park.
Perhaps it can be argued that the PCN/NTK issued is not POFA compliant as 9(2)a the "relevant land" is not clearly identified.

Umkomaas

Let's see the NtK. Simply heading it up 'Notice to Keeper' doesn't necessarily make it PoFA-compliant. Saves all the guessing and Chinese Whispers. 

pkul01

I am looking at preparing a summary costs schedule for this claim. I see that the LiP rate is £19/hr unless there is proof of earning higher rate. I have been helping my father prepare for this Claim hearing and have spent in excess of 40 hours and still going until WS and evidence filed latest 20-May. It has taken my time away from my work and I will also be the lay rep.
Can my costs be considered as my father who is the LiP but as he is 89 years old I am doing all the work on his behalf?

Umkomaas

I'm open to correction, but I don't think you can get costs. 

pkul01

Umkomaas, thanks regarding the costs.
I had attached these as part of the Claimant's WS at the beginning. Anyway, attached is the PCN that was sent by Claimant but not received. Also attached is the reminder notice from Claimant. That is all the Claimant ever sent until the debt recovery letters and Gladstones letters.