DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

Fruitcake

For you to be at WS stage and for there to be a hearing date. I'm sure the claimant must have already paid the court fee.

Remember to show us the claimant's WS as soon as you get it. Hopefully it will arrive before you need to submit yours.

Coupon-mad

I’d send it to court and claimant’s solicitor, 14 days before and not later.  Never mind the court fee date. 

houndsoflove

Evening all

Today I received a copy of the WS from WW & PPL and as requested I have uploaded a redacted version to Dropbox with a link below that hopefully works.  Appreciate any support and guidance on this and any suggestions to improve my WS that I posted a few days back.

Haven't had a proper chance to scrutinise it all yet however a couple of things that stand out immediately.

1.  The map of the signage layout is old and contains a building that was demolished on the land as can be seen in the exhibits I have included, for example the layout only shows one entrance where my exhibits clearly show two entrances.
2.  The parking agreement is signed by only one person who is the only director of the company (Shiv Shakti Developments  Limited).  I have a copy of the title register for the land that states under the charges register the following:

(04.05.2018) A Transfer of the land in this title and other land dated 29 March 2018 made between (1) Shiv Shakti Developments Limited and (2) Alba Construction (Midlands) Limited contains restrictive covenants.

Am I right in thinking that the company who signed the agreement no longer owned the land after 4th May 2018?  The person who signed the agreement is not a director of Alba Construction.

Thanks in advance for any help provided. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/chr7rb68gneg0go/Witness%20Statement%20Bundle%20%28pag%29%20%2841%20pages%29%20PPL%20-%20Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

There are so many manual and uninitialled edits to that 'Landowner (Mickey Mouse) Contract' that will need to be highlighted in your WS submission. 

Walt ups and runs when he's put to the test on such amateurish evidence. 

'Landowner Contract' my Jim Royle. 

Castle

The "contract" with the supposed Landowner doesn't even mention "Shiv Shakti Developments Limited"; so in fact the "contract" is between R K Parekh, (personally), and PPL and I doubt that Mr Parekh actually owns the car park.

Coupon-mad

The "contract" with the supposed Landowner is headed up 'test' and consists of three white pages with no staple marks, with a suspicious gap at the end of page 3, followed by page 4, a slightly crumpled piece of paper in a completely different grey (scanned) shade, with a staple hole... 

And the words 'please correct' are written in black felt tip, yet the 'client' page is in thin biro.

Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

Quite apart from the fact the OP has discovered that the land had been sold before the parking events, the document is also a contract for a PERMIT car park, not pay and display so maybe they used the wrong 'test' pages?  Yet the signs also talk about a permit according to the stock sign image.  I didn't see any evidence of what the sign actually said about pay and display (if anything) on the dates of the events because you can't breach a term to display a permit, by being caught out by a non-working PDT machine (is it not paying?  not displaying?  There is no such term to be breached on that stock image of a sign).

Lordy Lordy, and the parking industry wonder why words like ''outrageous scam'' were used by MPs during the reading of the new Knight Act and why the MHCLG called the worst rogue conduct 'rip-off' practices in this published policy paper yesterday:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-high-streets/build-back-better-high-streets#improving-the-public-realm

A fairer deal for motorists
64. Parking is a crucial part of our transport infrastructure. We all have an interest in how car parks are managed, especially given the important link between transport accessibility and the vitality of our high streets and town centres. In 2015, the Government delivered a series of reforms to support shoppers with municipal parking and is introducing new measures to stop rip-off practices in private parking.  We will shortly be launching a further technical consultation on proposed changes to parking charges, seeking views from motorists, parking operators and landowners on the level of private parking charges, to help deliver a fair, proportionate and consistent system across England

Johnersh

I agree with coupons observations. It appears as though someone has chopped a signature from another page and overlaid it on the copier. It has then been scanned onto another page so it reads as page 4.

I'd also note that the contracting party on page 1 is an individual, but the land is owned by a company. It's not been properly executed at all. 

The parking terms are potentially impossible to comply with if no ticket can be purchased and the driver was never entitled to a permit. Merely coming on to the land would place him in breach. 

If it were me, I would write a letter now requesting that Mr Wilkins attends court to provide oral evidence and to clarify the terms of the contract and the execution/commencement of it, as well as who was responsible for maintaining the machines. For a company WW runs personally the statement is generic chock full of legal argument and very light on the facts and matters regarding the parking event and the contract. 

I would be putting them on notice that you require inspection of the original document which should be provided to the court for review at the hearing. 

It's tricky to allege fraud: unless you can wholly prove it, you can lose favour with a judge. The court can make its own assessment as to the quality of the evidence before it. 

If WW fails to attend to clarify, the o/p could of course ask the court to consider o'keefe v Isle of man steam packet. 

Castle

Johnersh said:

If it were me, I would write a letter now requesting that Mr Wilkins attends court to provide oral evidence and to clarify the terms of the contract and the execution/commencement of it, as well as who was responsible for maintaining the machines. For a company WW runs personally the statement is generic chock full of legal argument and very light on the facts and matters regarding the parking event and the contract. 

It's not even a company; Mr Wilkins is a Sole Trader, (with personal liability), although in the very first paragraph of his WS he demotes himself to a "mere" employee and ends his WS by signing the Statement of Truth "on behalf of the claimant" despite being the claimant- that's the problem with a "Cut & Paste" WS written by somebody else.

Johnersh

Well that depends how you define company. He uses the term to define his business organisation, in which he employs others. Its not a protected term.

What's it is not (at least he says not at the material time) is a limited company.  That is a protected term and can only be used by incorporated companies.

I agree he's strictly speaking not an employee: a sole trader's personal assets are not distinct from the business, they are as one. He may have employees. 

I don't think there's mileage in the statement of truth other than to highlight its clearly a template. 

houndsoflove

Thank you all for the assistance so far, I have begun to amend the Landowner Contract element of the WS and have the below where suggestions are welcomed.

Landowner Contract

20.       The Claimant has appended a ‘Parking Scheme Agreement’ (PSA) which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

21.       It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

21.       The landowner at the time of the alleged contraventions is stated to be Alba Construction (Midlands) Limited as evidenced on the most recent Title Registration & Title Plan form the HM Land Registry (Exhibit XX-08).  This shows that the land at 54 Sandwell Road, West Bromwich was transferred to Alba Construction (Midlands) Limited on 29th March 2018.  Companies House does not list the signatory of the PSA as having any involvement with Alba Construction (Midlands) Limited (Exhibit XX-09) and therefore renders the PSA is null and void.

22.       The PSA refers to a ‘test agreement’ and states that “The PSA confers upon the Company the right to enter the Location and to exercise vehicle control by the use of parking charge notices parked on the location without displaying a permit from the client.”  This is further supplemented by a stock image submitted by the claimant that states “displaying a valid permit within the windscreen with permit clearly on view.”  The claimant is however alleging in paragraph 24 ii of their witness statement that the terms state that a valid ‘pay and display’ ticket must be purchased to park.  It is therefore difficult to ascertain what term the claimant is alleging has been breached by failing to display a permit or purchasing a valid pay and display ticket.

23.       The PSA is littered with several manual and uninitialed edits, some of which appear in different pen.  In addition, page 4 of the agreement appears to have the claimants signature copied from another document overlaid onto this PSA that appears at an angle with a clear distinctive line across the page and darker font from top to bottom.  This casts further doubt of the validity of the agreement.