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

henrik777

pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign).

did not adhere to the parking regulations at ‘Sovereign Apartments’. This was namely owing to the fact the Defendant’s vehicle was parked without the display of a valid permit. 

Vehicles must be parked with a valid parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen and parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display

The terms of parking as set out above make it explicitly clear what is permissible by way of parking and it is clear that a permit is required to be parked. Attached to this statement at exhibit GSL1 are photographs taken of the Defendant’s vehicle which are duly date and time stamped. The same are evident that on the above occasions no permit was seen on display within the Defendant’s vehicle. 


 As such and owing to the above, the Defendant parked in a manner that did not adhere to the parking regulations.







The absolute basic point requires there to be a contract. You cannot breach a contract unless it exists. Is there offer consideration acceptance ?

Clumsy101

In your WS you didn't mention that there is no company called PL Management registered at Companies House. Of the six companies with PL Management in their company name, Dallas Craik does not appear in the lists of People registered at Companies House as a person with authority to sign a contract on behalf of their employer.

Did you also mention that the company named on the (alleged) Landowner Authority does not state in what capacity the company is acting? None of the following have been ticked/circled/highlighted.

FREEHOLDER
LEASEHOLDER
MANAGER
MANAGING AGENT

So I said the following in regards to these points:

1.         The Claimant has appended a ‘landowner authority’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The letter does not establish the identity of ‘PL Management’ and under what capacity they are acting in this matter. Neither does it establish the role and position of ‘Dallas Craik’ who is acting on behalf of ‘PL Management’ and under what authority are they acting to represent ‘PL Management’. The claimant has not proven the authority for the named company to act on behalf of the landowner, neither a contract with or flowing from the landowner has been produced.

2.         Furthermore, the document has no signature from either party, 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.

3.         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. It is clear that two Directors have not signed this contract for either party, contrary to the Companies Act. 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.

4.         The Parking Restrictions, as stated in the landowner authority, do not mention anything about having to display a physical permit. The clause states ‘Parking for valid PCM permit holders only within marked parking areas. I believe I was a valid permit holder as I was granted the right to park and was told by the estate agents, facilitating the parking arrangement, that the permits were digital. I had duly passed my vehicle registration details to the estate agent as part of the arrangement which had been passed on to the defendant (Evidence xx-01).

Let me know if need to ammend anything.

Also in regards to identity of "PL Management", I realised this appears in the signature of the person who forwarded my car registeration details to PCM-UK as part of the "digital permit" process. So if I am questioning the identity of 'PL Management' can I still rely on the email with 'PL management' in the signature as an evidence?

Attached said email. Also note a parking permit was initially also requested but it was never posted by PCMUK. The email about digital permits came later.

Clumsy101

henrik777 said:

pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign).

did not adhere to the parking regulations at ‘Sovereign Apartments’. This was namely owing to the fact the Defendant’s vehicle was parked without the display of a valid permit. 

Vehicles must be parked with a valid parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen and parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display

The terms of parking as set out above make it explicitly clear what is permissible by way of parking and it is clear that a permit is required to be parked. Attached to this statement at exhibit GSL1 are photographs taken of the Defendant’s vehicle which are duly date and time stamped. The same are evident that on the above occasions no permit was seen on display within the Defendant’s vehicle. 


 As such and owing to the above, the Defendant parked in a manner that did not adhere to the parking regulations.







The absolute basic point requires there to be a contract. You cannot breach a contract unless it exists. Is there offer consideration acceptance ?

Thanks for picking this up @henrik777. Apologies for my lack of knowledge on the legal lingo. I am not sure what would be considered 'offer consideration acceptance'. Not sure what you are asking exactly.

I just parked at the property once the estate agent told me I was free to do so as permits were digital. PCMUK were not involved at any stage of the renting process and never did I recive any permits from them.

Le_Kirk

sabahat101 said:

henrik777 said:

pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign)...............

Thanks for picking this up @henrik777. Apologies for my lack of knowledge on the legal lingo. I am not sure what would be considered 'offer consideration acceptance'. Not sure what you are asking exactly.

A quick interrogation of Auntie Google gave me this: -
http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf
other explanations were available.

D_P_Dance

My contract was between me and the estate agent

I very much doubt thast this was the case.  I very much doubt that an Estate Agent would be able to add or remove VRNs from an exempt list.  

If such a list existed, surely it would be under the control of the Managing Agents.

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

My contract was between me and the estate agent

I very much doubt thast this was the case.  I very much doubt that an Estate Agent would be able to add or remove VRNs from an exempt list.  

If such a list existed, surely it would be under the control of the Managing Agents.

Unless the estate agents are also the MA, as is the case with the properties that my Outlaws let.

D_P_Dance

I have rented out properties since 1977.  I have never encountered the situation you mention.  

nosferatu1001

Of course. 

you're questioning the legal identity of PL. 

They're not a legal company as they're not on company house. They're at best a sole trader and as such 
cannot
Contract in their own name. The name of the sole trader must be given. 

Clumsy101

Le_Kirk said:

sabahat101 said:

henrik777 said:

pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign)...............

Thanks for picking this up @henrik777. Apologies for my lack of knowledge on the legal lingo. I am not sure what would be considered 'offer consideration acceptance'. Not sure what you are asking exactly.

A quick interrogation of Auntie Google gave me this: -
http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf
other explanations were available.

Thanks for clarifying @Le_@Le_Kirk. 
@hen@henrik777 the claimant said the following in their witness statement:

The Court may conclude that the Relevant Land is managed as follows; my Company grants a contractual license to all; this license allows anyone permission to be on the Relevant Land. This is inferred by the nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard, the Defendant (as were all the motorists) was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a £100 charge. The acceptance was at the point the Defendant decided to park, having read the sign, and his consideration was the promise to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside the normal conditions. The Claimant’s consideration is the provision of parking services.

Although I must say that I never read the signs as I felt I did not need to after the estate agent gave me the all clear.

Coupon-mad

You've just quoted a template paragraph.  You know your verbal contract granting the right to park was not with this Claimant, never mind signs.