Evidence bundle in relation to private parking ticket due by 18th December 2020

Clumsy101

Hi all,
I have a court case brought against me by Gladstones representing UKPCM who were the parking managers at my previous flat that I had rented. 

Unfortunately, I only discovered this forum very recently so I was unable to post to seek help earlier. I already submitted a very basic defence back in March and now awaiting court hearing.



I have read the Newbies thread and some of the other threads with similar cases but I dont know if I can still be helped as I am way past the defence stage and all. Any help would be greatly appreciated.




My understanding is that UKPCM intially did not mind cancelling PCNs on behest of landowner's agent but once they were given notice of termination they refused to cancel anymore PCN even if asked whcih has led to me being in this situation.



Any help is greatly appreciated. 
Many Thanks all

KeithP

Oh dear, another Statement of Truth that begins "The Claimant believes...".

What is the name of the person who has signed that Witness Statement?

Coupon-mad

Your first post says UKCPM and then PCM UK.  They are 2 different ex-clamper thug parking firms.

We need to see the landowner authority, and your clauses from your lease about parking.  Do you rent as a tenant with a HA or a private landlord?

Clumsy101

KeithP said:

Oh dear, another Statement of Truth that begins "The Claimant believes...".

What is the name of the person who has signed that Witness Statement?

Annie Oliver - She is the legal and compliance manager.Coupon-mad said:

Your first post says UKCPM and then PCM UK.  They are 2 different ex-clamper thug parking firms.

We need to see the landowner authority, and your clauses from your lease about parking.  Do you rent as a tenant with a HA or a private landlord?

Apologies for the confusion - Its PCMUK Ltd.
Landowner authority (As supplied in the evidence bundle) - attached

We (Me and my ex flatmate) rented with a Private Landlord - The following is copy pasted from tenancy agreement

5.23 Parking:

5.23.1 If the event that there is regulated or controlled on street parking at the Premises it shall be

the responsibility of the Tenant to apply for an obtain a parking permit and to comply with the regulations

pertaining to the issue of the same.

5.23.2 The Tenant shall ensure that all lawful guests or visitors adhere to any parking regulations.

5.23.3 The Landlord shall have no responsibility for any fines, clamping or other enforcement

measures carried out against the tenant for any breach of controlled or regulation parking restrictions.

Coupon-mad

That so-called landowner authority isn't even digitally signed. Someone has just typed a name on the page and it could have been created by PCM, given that the page shown is not the full contract and is on PCM headed notepaper, with no tick at the top to show who 'PL Management' are.  They are not the landowner.

And the restrictions don't match the signs because there is nothing about having to display a paper permit, only that parking is for permitted for 'valid PCM permit holders' which you were because you were granted that right and told it was a digital permit scheme, for which your car details were taken before you moved in:
Parking Restrictions:
 Parking for valid PCM permit holders only within marked parking areas
 No parking on paved areas at any time regardless of permit type
  No parking outside of marked bays within designates parking areas at any time.

In the alternative, if the court believes that you were not 'permitted' and fitted within that group of people, then the signs offer no contract to people without a permit.  The offer is only extended to those with one, therefore there is no consideration flowing between the parties (i.e. nothing of value is offered to you) and the signs are prohibitive.

Search the forum for 'PCM v Bull'' and copy someone else's WS wording about that, putting it into the example WS and evidence in the NEWBIES thread.

Fruitcake

No signature from either party. This fails the requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

S43 covers "Simple Contracts" that requires in paragraph 2 that the contract comply with formalities in law. For a contract to be valid, it must be signed by a person with the authority to do so. This would normally be stated in the company's articles which would say who has authority delegated from a director or owner to sign on their behalf, or be contained in a separate statement to that effect. 

S44 covers executable documents and requires them to be signed by two authorised persons from both parties; an authorised person being defined as a director or company secretary, or a director and witness.

The parking scammers have not signed the alleged contract which is actually nothing more than a polite letter stating this person would agree to a contract, but no such contract has actually been produced. It would be reasonable to presume that the man on the Clapham omnibus would believe that such a contract was never actually approved.
It is no different to a homeowner asking for quotes from builders and then saying to one in particular that they accept their quote, but never getting a reply.

On the 3rd of July 2020, District Judge Simon Middleton said in case number F1DP92KF heard at the Truro County Court that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner".

There are six companies registered at Companies House with PL Management in the company name, but none are called just PL Management. There is no company number or registered address on Mr/Mrs/Master/Miss/Ms Craik's letter, so there is no proof they are employed by a company with authority to operate on the land in question, nor have the authority to agree a contract with another party, nor is there any proof Dallas Craik has the authority to sign on behalf of this undefined company.

Of these six companies, Dallas Craik does not appear to be or have ever been a director, company secretary, or person with significant interest in these companies.

To summarise: -

The identity of the company named on the letter has not been established.
The authority for the named company to act on behalf of the landowner has not been proven.
The capacity in which the company named on the letter is acting has not been established.
The authority for the person named on the letter to act on behalf of the undefined company named on the letter has not been established.
A contract with or flowing from the landowner has not been produced.
The letter is not signed by any party.
The parking company has not signed the letter.
Neither the commencement date nor end or renewal date of an alleged contract authorising the parking company operate on the named site has been provided.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

There are six companies registered at Companies House with PL Management in the company name, but none are called just PL Management. There is no company number or registered address on Mr/Mrs/Master/Miss/Ms Craik's letter, so there is no proof they are employed by a company with authority to operate on the land in question, nor have the authority to agree a contract with another party, nor is there any proof Dallas Craik has the authority to sign on behalf of this undefined company.

Try company number 04130915, although looking at their last set of accounts for June 2019 they are probably not trading at the moment. 

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

There are six companies registered at Companies House with PL Management in the company name, but none are called just PL Management. There is no company number or registered address on Mr/Mrs/Master/Miss/Ms Craik's letter, so there is no proof they are employed by a company with authority to operate on the land in question, nor have the authority to agree a contract with another party, nor is there any proof Dallas Craik has the authority to sign on behalf of this undefined company.

Try company number 04130915, although looking at their last set of accounts for June 2019 they are probably not trading at the moment. 

I did a quick search of "People" for that and the other five companies and couldn't find a Dallas Craik in any of them.
You may be right that it is that company, but it could just as easily be another one. Without a unique name or other specific identifier such as company number or registered address, there is no proof it was this company at all. That's very shoddy.

Any way, it's for the scammers to prove it is/was this company, or a different one with a similar name, and to prove there was a valid contract signed by authorised personal. It's the defendant's job to aver there was no proof of any of the points we have all raised when they submit their WS or at the hearing.

Clumsy101

HI Everyone,
Thank you so much for all the feedback guys which I have taken on board to draft a witness statement. I would really appreciate if you guys could have a look and critic it.

Also, @Coupon-mad added your argument about 'prohibitve nature of the signange hence no contract. However, this is something claimant has already addressed in their WS. I am attaching their WS for your consideration. Grateful if you could have a look and tell me if the argument about 'prohibitive signs' still stands.

@Fruitcake the WS of claimant says that they dont have to provide a valid landowner authority and refer to VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) and say teh follwoing "made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance." 
Grateful if you could also have a look through my WS and theirs and see if what I have written makes sense.

Many Thanks guys

Clumsy101

Also guys, I was ging through my emails and I found out that in one of the emails dated February 2019 the property manager confirmed that PCMUK were no longer instructed at property and new parking company would be taking over.

PCMUK continued to pursue the claim despite being dismissed from the property. Even the NTKs were issued after the date of the email from landowner's agent stating that PCMUK had been dismissed. Did they have the right to pursue these PCNs despite having their authority at the land terminated?

I have mentioned this in my WS btw and also have attached the email from agent confirming this in the file.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes they can pursue a PCN dating from a day that was before they got kicked out, but your WS can tell the Judge that they were removed due to multiple complaints (let them prove otherwise!) and you can attach that email from the Managing Agents.

Just because you think a PPC has 'addressed an issue' in their template WS doesn't mean you don't put what you've been advised to put and use PCM v Bull as an exhibit.  Let the Judge decide whose evidence he/she prefers. 

I haven't had a chance to look at their WS at all (time constraints tonight) but by the same token, they have probably included some stuff about the Semark-Jullien case but you wouldn't delete all the stuff from our example WS about that case, would you?

Use it all.  Think of it as like a game of Top Trumps.