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

Clumsy101

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.

You are right that the Estate Agents did not add VRNs to exempt list. Rather they emailed managing agents they details who forwarded them to PCMUK as you can see from the email chain that I am attaching here.

My point was that I was only dealing with estate agents and they did the rest.

Clumsy101

nosferatu1001 said:

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. 

Should I add the above to my witness statement do you reckon?

Coupon-mad

That is good evidence that PCM knew from that email that this car was permitted.  Trouble is they will say 'but they didn't display a paper permit, as per the signage''.  By emailing like that, the Agents (between them) alerted PCM to go looking for your car because they knew it wouldn't have a permit yet.  Scam, isn't it?!

Clumsy101

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Ah I get it. So I am categorically denying any contract existed between me and the claimant as I already had an agreement with the estate agent and the lessor who owns the property?

Coupon-mad

Yep, a prior agreement granted you a right to park and you were reliably informed that your VRM had been added to the permitted list, which you were told by the estate agent was digital.   Nothing in that email chain (that you only obtained later) told either of the agents that the driver wasn't permitted. If PCM had wanted to state that the driver must immediately display a paper permit, rather than add your VRM to a white list, then they had to provide an immediate permit (e.g. by emailing a temporary one over).  They didn't.  Wholly unreasonable to then go seeking out that car, knowing it was granted the permission to park already.

A Judge will probably agree.

Clumsy101

Coupon-mad said:

That is good evidence that PCM knew from that email that this car was permitted.  Trouble is they will say 'but they didn't display a paper permit, as per the signage''.  By emailing like that, the Agents (between them) alerted PCM to go looking for your car because they knew it wouldn't have a permit yet.  Scam, isn't it?!

My gut feeling is that PCMUK knew were going to be dismissed from the property so they decided to make as much money as possible on their way out.

I had been parking at the property for two months and only got one ticket which was duly cancelled by PCMUK upon request from landowner's agent. And then Bam! they issued me 5 ticket on 5 consecutive days!!  

Coupon-mad

Then include that in your WS - shows predatory ticketing and no legitimate interest in pursuing the charges.  Revenge for losing the contract is the opposite of the commercial justification that ParkingEye had in the Supreme Court Beavis case.

nosferatu1001

Yep. They don't have any commercial reason fro. The landholder - you were authorised to be there. 

Fruitcake

With regards to the name PL Management, what I am getting at is that no company of that name is registered at Companies House. It isn't good enough to say that their identity has not been established or similar, because the judge could just say, but that company is named on the landowner authority and emails.
You have to lead the judge by the nose.
No company of that name at registered at CH. Include the list of company names with PL Management in them as proof for your WS.
Nobody called Dallas Craik is mentioned in CH listings under People for any of the other companies with similar but different names (nobody with that name listed as having authority to sign a contract).

Also specifically mention that D Craik has not identified which of the four entities he is acting under. (Freeholder, Leaseholder etcetera.)

henrik777

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 ?

I couldn't see a clear picture of the sign.

Did the driver and the claimant agree parking was acceptable on terms both agreed ?
If so what benefit did each party get ?
And what did each party do to accept the terms ?


Further the witness statement says a permit "MUST" be displayed. If they didn't supply something so central to what they consider a "contract" then the contract must be frustrated if indeed a contract exists.