Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

Jenni_D

DontWorryBeHappy27 said:

Jenni_D said:

Whilst everything posted recently may be factual, I think we need to be careful that any commentary doesn't veer towards character assassination of the said HHJ.

Jenni D is right, I know we are all really unhappy about the Judgement of HHJ , but it is really important we temper our words. I don't know what umkomaas did , but they were banned a week ago. 33 thousand posts too.

I suspect that was to do with posting and promoting the GoFundMe link ... MSE Towers probably received an email from OPS' solicitors. 🙄

Half_way

Lets go digging.....

First things first, are the car park owners, and wider community aware of all of this??

A little bit of digging has thrown up this site:

https://lewes.co.uk/forum/post/The_notorious_Eastgate_parking_bay_problem/187556

 that topic dates from 2016, with the last post being 2019.

 the forum itself does have some life in it, the last post being on Sunday: https://lewes.co.uk/forum

Taking information from that forum :

 On 16 Sep 2019 at 4:25pm Peter Parker wrote:

The landowner is Debenham Property Trust. The trustees are Nicholas Debenham and Nicholas Charles Lear. They are also the directors of Quagga Property.
The managing agent is www.clemdobson.co.uk
Debenham Property Trust have apparently leased the car park to One Parking Solution.

Not quite sure if i buy the leased to OPS, more like OPS are massaging the car park, either which way there is plenty to go at there.

 the term property trust also brings up alarm bells - is this a charitable trust??  are Nicholas Debenham and Nicholas Charles Lear aware of this sorry story??

There are more details on Quagga property here:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09834349/officers

nicestrawb

This guy?! http://www.ses-forums.org/viewtopic.php?t=172
Seems there is a scholastic theme with this case. He'd be almost in his 90's now?

AnotherForumite

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

nicestrawb

AnotherForumite said:

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

Ah it's the person who asks questions but can't answer them! Well, they didn't have authority in my case, quite the opposite as it turned out. So there's every chance eh...

Snakes_Belly

AnotherForumite said:

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

If they have the landowner's  written authority then they should be able to produce it. It's not on balance of probablity. They either have got it or they haven't. 

You have to remember that it is the PPC's that instigate the claims in the first place. They therefore should make sure that their house in order and that they have the authority to pursue these claims.

I don't know why there is such spite over the fundraising. OPS should be pleased that they are going to get payment and grateful that Norma is an upright lady. 

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

AnotherForumite said:

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

If they have the landowner's  written authority then they should be able to produce it. It's not on balance of probablity. They either have got it or they haven't. 

The only certain fact on "balance of probabilities’ is when the new CoP and appeals service comes in .... there will be a lot of bleeting on one side and a lot of laughter on the other side

PPC 's will have to get used to it ?

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

There is a big difference between having landowner authority, and needing landowner authority. 

If a company has landowner authority, and bearing in mind the length of time it generally takes for a PCN to get to court, it would be reasonable to expect a PPC to have all their paperwork in order at the time of the hearing.
If a PPC was unable to produce a landowner authority, (or any other document they wished to rely on in court)  after that amount of time had passed, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not have such authority.

As nicestrawb has said, and as I have seen myself on several alleged parking contracts, the PPC rarely had landowner authority to operate. In addition, many contracts failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to Simple Contracts and valid execution of documents.

As mentioned already, you have failed to answer many of the questions you have been asked, the most important of these is, for which parking company do you work?

Snakes_Belly

"As nicestrawb has said, and as I have seen myself on several alleged parking contracts, the PPC rarely had landowner authority to operate. In addition, many contracts failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to Simple Contracts and valid execution of documents."

I have seen many cases whereby there was no valid contract with landowner in place. Turnip's case was a recent one.

There has been a number of instances where the contract and the signage have been different entities.

There are also instances where the PPC's contract is not renewed by the landowner usually after complaints from customers.  When the landowner realises that the PPC is doing more harm to their business than good.

On the balance of probablities there may not be a valid contract with landowner in place.

Coupon-mad

AnotherForumite said:

Do you guys REALLY think that OPS didn’t have the landowners authority? 

Come on, they may not have had their paperwork in order; but let’s be realistic... of course they will have had the landowners authority to operate. 

Let’s not forgot that the required standard of proof in a civil matter is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

In all eight bays and across the forecourt that they don't lease, or in just the six P&D bays that the lease revealed suddenly, at the first hearing, that they leased?

Do you REALLY think it is acceptable that a PPC can draw up an aerial view of 'the site' that is bigger than the bays leased, and create and sign a 'management agreement' for that larger area that doesn't feature the freeholder of the site as a party or signatory?   

If that is true, then where does that end, can a PPC draw up a pretty picture of, for example, the whole of Sheffield using Google Earth, even though they only lease a smidgen of the area at a little car park?

I can't see the new statutory CoP and Scrutiny Panel allowing PPCs to sign their own landowner authorities.