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

nosferatu1001

It's impossible to perform more like - you can't form the contract 

Clumsy101

Thank you all for the very kind and useful feedback. I will be adding all of the suggestions to my WS over next couple of days.
I had a recent development which I thought Ill get your guys' opinion on. So the leaseholder of the car park space has very kindly given a statement to confirm that he authroised me to use the space to park my car (see attached).

How can I potentially use this in my WS? 
Really appreciate all the help.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

You can refer to it in your WS, that's all you need to do, and give it an exhibit number like all your other exhibits.  He should also append proof that he is the leaseholder otherwise the C could say this guy might not be!  i.e. another exhibit should be a copy of his lease where it talks about the right to park a vehicle.  Otherwise this guy could be anyone.

He should attend the phone call with you as an extra witness - i.e. when the court ask for phone numbers, give his as well and both 'attend' so he can confirm this.  A witness who doesn't attend, can be dismissed as hearsay.

Clumsy101

The issue is that my hearing is in person rather than via telephone and the leaseholder lives abroad.
Also, for some reason they are reluctant to send through the lease document as they were not directly invovled in renting of the parking space. The esate agent manages the whole thing for them. 

Coupon-mad

Well that statement from him is the best you will get then, but be prepared for the C to say it's hearsay and how do they know he is not just some random relative of yours and not the leaseholder.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Well that statement from him is the best you will get then, but be prepared for the C to say it's hearsay and how do they know he is not just some random relative of yours and not the leaseholder.

Maybe you could ask the estate manager to confirm (in writing) the status of the witness as a non-resident leaseholder/freeholder/tenant (or whatever he/she is).

Clumsy101

Ok guys a bit of an update on this case:
So I submitted the evidence bundle taking into account the suggestions posted by the kind users here.
I also managed to hear back from landowner's agent who also sent in a WS to help with the case in which they confirmed that the leasholder does indeed own the property and parking space.

In addition the ladowner's agent informed me that 'PL Management' whom the parking company had the contract with were dismissed as agents from property before my tickets were issued and their company took over in February 2019 so just after I was issued the tickets in janaury 2019.  I included this in my WS as well and attached the termination letter of PL management and argued that because the company who hired PCMUK was no longer instructed at the property then by default PCMUK would not have any authority to operate on the land.

As my defence and WS were very different, the claimant has sent in an additional WS to compliment the original WS and just denied everything.

This is what they had to say: 

Sequence of Events:

 

1. The defendant has set out the fact he was a tenant of ’xxx’ and further refers to an agreement between another tenant of ’xxx’ with regards to renting the parking space associated with xxx in return for a monthly fee.

 

1. The defendant has confirmed that his vehicle details were provided to his estate agents, following which he avers he was advised “permits were digital” and that he was “free to park at the property”.

 

1. Whilst I do not wish to repeat the points as raised within my initial witness statement, it is highlighted that the issue of the defendant’s residency does not provide for valid grounds for the claim to be dismissed. The issue in dispute is the manner in which the vehicle was parked and I submit that all motorists, including residents were bound by the terms of the parking regulations.

 

1. Furthermore, parking on site is not monitored by the estate agents which the defendant refers to having communication between. All signage on site is enforced and monitored by my company. The contractual terms are clearly advertised by signage throughout the parking area and that a third party incorrectly advised the defendant to park contrary to these terms is not sufficient reason for the charges to be rescinded. As previously set out, the defendant was at liberty to contact my company who would have been able to rescind, and at the very least helped the defendant to avoid incurring the charges as listed in the above schedule.

 

1. With regards to the physicality of permits, Permits are physically needed to be displayed within the vehicles and this is made clear within the relative terms of signage. The terms state “displayed within the vehicle”. Therefore there is no reasonable explanation that would have led the Defendant to have assumed otherwise.

 

1. The defendant accepts the issuance of a charge to his vehicle on the 15/12/2018 but seeks to rely on advices again, from a third party namely estate agents that the same would be “cancelled”. It is not accepted that the defendant is able to rely on the advices from another party with whom he chose to consult regarding parking. Indeed, the estate agents were not in a position to advise that the charge would be “cancelled” as so alleged by the defendant. This would further have been evident to the defendant when he received further charges and at this stage, it is reasonable that the defendant ought to have known his vehicle was not parked in a compliant manner. It is not accepted that the defendant would reasonably have believed all four charges as listed above were issued “in error”.

 

Breach of contract and Landowner Authority:

 

7.      The issue of the charge being issued to the defendant and the terms of contractual breach have been previously addressed in my initial statement. Owing to the fact the defendant failed to park his vehicle with the display of a valid permit, on each occasion listed, the defendant breached the terms of the contractual terms and as such parking was not valid.

1. The defendant also suggests that my company had no authority to issue the charges or commence legal action. This is wholly denied. It is maintained the details of the contract by which the Claimant company has been instructed to manage the Relevant Land are not relevant to the Defendant’s breach of contract with the Claimant company, for the sake of completeness, a copy of the aforementioned contract has previously been provided. This issue has also been addressed within my initial statement.

 

1. The defendant has alleged that further to the copy of the landowner agreement, ‘Dallas Craik’ has never been listed as a “director of any companies with PL management in their name”. In response, the defendant is referred to the agreement which states that Dallas Craik is the Assistant Portfolio Manager, and at no stage has it been advised that he was the director of any company. Therefore the defendant’s argument in this respect is redundant.

 

1. The defendant is seeking to undermine the authority delegated to my company with regards to the operation of the parking scheme, based simply on the title held by Mr Craik. This is not accepted. The defendant is asked to note that the company who delegate the authority is that of PL Management. It is not and has not been alleged that Dallas Craik is the relevant individual providing landowner authority. However, as an organisation employing many employees, his role is that as identified and stipulated within the agreement. The defendant’s argument that my company does not have valid authority to operate is not accepted as we were instructed by PL Management.

 

1. In February 2019, we were contacted by xxx Estate Agents Ltd and xxx Ltd to advise of a change of managing agents of the land. Immediately thereafter, we ceased patrol of the site. However, the charges as references above were issued to the defendant prior to this and in January 2019 at which stage PL Management were the relevant agents and had instructed us. Therefore any argument from the defendant with regards to the cessation of PL Management is redundant to the facts of his case as the managing agents did not alter until a period after the defendant had incurred the charges.

 

1. The statement sought to be relied on by the Defendant of Mr xxx is noted. Mr xxx is the director of Winterborne Limited, the current managing agents of the land. Mr xxx is not a party to the claim and nor is it disputed that they are the current managing agents. However, as set out above at the time the defendant’s vehicle was issued with the above charges, PL Management were the relevant managing agents. It is not accepted that Mr xxx has any grounds to comment on the issue of the defendant and his parking space, his witness evidence at paragraph 8 states:

 

1. “I understand from the defendant and the tenant’s agent, though I have not seen evidence, that the defendant has the benefit of the car park space”.

 

1. Therefore, it is not accepted in light of the above that Mr xxx is in a position to be able to comment any further and his statement relies on claims of his opinion which are not accepted as relevant to this claim. Mr xxx’s opinion on car park management and companies as such, is redundant to the facts of this case.

 

1. Any change in managing agents would also not provide as grounds for the above charges to be rescinded. The change of a managing agent does not make the previous provisions void. Therefore it is not accepted that the issue of authority is one that can be disputed.

 

Primacy of Contract:

 

1. Again, the defendant relies on having “landlord permission” which permitted him to “exclusive use of the parking space” in question. This issue has been addressed previously. The defendant is seeking to rely on third party advices, and those third parties are not a party to the parking scheme. The defendant was at liberty to ensure that his vehicle was parked in a manner that adhered to the signage, of which there was ample on site and not parked in adherence to any verbal agreement he seeks to rely on.

 

1. It Is not denied that the use of parking spaces were not available for tenants to use, however the signage makes it clear that a valid permit is required in order to park. It was in the absence of the same that the charges were incurred by the defendant.

Can I get your thoughts on these please? Do I need to send in anything else before hearing? 

nosferatu1001

No, because you know how to defeat these
For example, with the contract- if theyre not a director, then they are not automativally capable of entering a contract. The CLAIMANT has to prove that the person named had sufficient authority to enter a contract. They are required to prove their claim, you have raised a valid quesiton, they have failed to answer it. 

nosferatu1001

An obvious counte rto "but the signs said so" is - why would  you check a sign when someone of actual authority has told you otherwise?

Coupon-mad

Honestly it just smacks of desperation.  See it for what it is and make some bullet point notes against each point, ready to raise at the hearing.