Going to County Court Business Centre over VCS Parking Charge/ Notice.

Fruitcake

BenjiH23 said:

Fruitcake said:

You've cropped the bottom of the alleged contract which means we can't see the important names and positions of the signatories. We need this to check them against Companies House records.

Don't worry. You'll get the hang of this soon.

My apologies, here is the full contract. I believe they took a photo with a time stamp showing my car under their sign in visible light.

I'm referring specifically to the entrance sign, not other signs within the car park. The Map legend refers to a post and a sign to be installed at the entrance. Have they proved that the post and entrance sign was actually there in May 2017?

Have you identified the landowner because I think Peppermint Grove are managing agents, not landowners? If so, then there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner. 
The contract signatures are not dated so there is no proof it was in force at the time of the alleged event, unless there is a date on the back. There is a PTO at the bottom right, so what is on the back? Anything important?
The signatures have not been witnessed so fail the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 section 44. However, they do appear to meet the requirements of Section 43, (simple contracts) as long as Peppermint Grove have the landowner authority to form contracts with a third party.

I'll have a rummage around Companies House records.

Fruitcake

According to Companies House, Stephen Priestnall has been a director of Peppermint Grove Ltd since 2015, so no help there.

However, the contract refers to Peppermint Grove Ltd as the lawful occupier, not the landowner. There is no proof therefore that the landowner had/has granted PG Ltd or Stephen Priestnall implied or explicit authority to form a contract with a third party. Neither is there any proof that the unidentified landowner is even aware the contract exists.
The contract is not dated (unless it's on the back) so there is no proof it was in force at the time of the alleged event.

Para 4.4 of the contract says the scammers will ensure all vehicles approved to use the car park display a permit, which implies that there is no offer of parking to non-permit holders which is at variance with the signs, and therefore appears to make the contract a forbidding one. 

Coupon-mad

Is that the right version from 2017?

KeithP

BenjiH23 said:

Also I read this when looking to when reading up on the ICP. It seems to throw their “Grace Period Not being applicable” out of the window.

But as discussed yesterday, if the driver leaves his car in the car park and wanders outside the car park then it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that the driver has made an 'informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site'.


Or to put it another way, the grace period that allows a driver to decide whether to stay or not, ends when the driver walks away from the car park leaving his car parked there.

Johnersh

We don't have a verbatim defence on here. But interestingly the paralegal states that C was observed by a parking officer.... But where is the statement to that effect?

In principle, if you turn up at tesco, discover it closed, used the cashpoint and left that should not be ticket-worthy.  But if the defence says the o/p wandered off, that's much harder. 

BenjiH23

Coupon-mad said:

Is that the right version from 2017?

I’m not sure, it’s the 2nd edition, but doesn’t include a year.

BenjiH23

KeithP said:

BenjiH23 said:

Also I read this when looking to when reading up on the ICP. It seems to throw their “Grace Period Not being applicable” out of the window.

But as discussed yesterday, if the driver leaves his car in the car park and wanders outside the car park then it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that the driver has made an 'informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site'.


Or to put it another way, the grace period that allows a driver to decide whether to stay or not, ends when the driver walks away from the car park leaving his car parked there.

Yeah it’s a tricky one. In my defence, I put I wasn’t sure if I even left the premise to check the other car park, as I wasn’t sure what counted as the premise.

But realistically, it’s a small car park. And I couldn’t have stayed in it without me and the warden seeing each other. For me, my main argument is that the sign wasn’t clear on the terms and conditions when the shops are closed. If they were, I would have left immediately and not checked out the other car park at all. 

BenjiH23

Johnersh said:

We don't have a verbatim defence on here. But interestingly the paralegal states that C was observed by a parking officer.... But where is the statement to that effect?

In principle, if you turn up at tesco, discover it closed, used the cashpoint and left that should not be ticket-worthy.  But if the defence says the o/p wandered off, that's much harder. 

The officer has a single line statement saying. “Parling in the carpark when the store are closed.” That isn’t me making a mistake, she actually spelt parking wrong.

I haven’t actually put I wandered out of the premise in my defence. But I don’t think I can say I never left the car park because of how small it was. Me and the officer would have seen each other.

KeithP

The 1st April 2017 version of the IPC's CoP says:

Fruitcake

BenjiH23 said:

Fruitcake said:

According to Companies House, Stephen Priestnall has been a director of Peppermint Grove Ltd since 2015, so no help there.

However, the contract refers to Peppermint Grove Ltd as the lawful occupier, not the landowner. There is no proof therefore that the landowner had/has granted PG Ltd or Stephen Priestnall implied or explicit authority to form a contract with a third party. Neither is there any proof that the unidentified landowner is even aware the contract exists.
The contract is not dated (unless it's on the back) so there is no proof it was in force at the time of the alleged event.

Para 4.4 of the contract says the scammers will ensure all vehicles approved to use the car park display a permit, which implies that there is no offer of parking to non-permit holders which is at variance with the signs, and therefore appears to make the contract a forbidding one. 

Amazing, thanks for your help.

1) I can’t find any proof of there being a sign upon entry to the car park. I know there is one now but I don’t remember there being one back in 2017.

2) I can’t seem to find who the land owner is in what they’ve sent me. I assumed it was Tesco. But I’ll double check again tomorrow.

3) The document with the signatures goes to the map/plans of the premise I included earlier, which is marked at p17. I’m not sure if this is the back or a separate page. 

1) If the scammers have not provided proof regarding the existence of the entrance sign on the date of the alleged event, then draw the court's attention to this fact, and that the map says one was going to be installed. Check what the IPC CoP said about entrance sign requirements, then quote it. Make sure you use the version in place at the time of the alleged event.

2) I doubt if Tesco own the land. You can ask the council who pays the non-domestic business rates, and/or pay about £3 to obtain a copy of the Land Registry entry. There is no guarantee though that you will get the answers before you need to submit your WS. If that is the case, then simply state that Peppermint Grove Lts are not the landowner. Put the scammers to proof to the contrary and/or hope you have the proof by the time of the hearing.

3) If the contract number on the alleged contract matches the contract number on the page with the maps, then the PTO legend would imply that the map is on the reverse side to the signature page, and forms part of the alleged contract.

I can't see a date on either side of the alleged contract, but I can't tell if you have shown us the whole of the back or not, or if there are any other pages to the contract that you have not shown us.

IF the contract is not dated then there is no proof that a contract was in place at the time of the alleged event. Add that to the fact that there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner, or that the landowner is even aware of any contract, and that there is no proof that Peppermint Grove Ltd and/or Stephen Priestnall has express or implied authority from the landowner to form a contract, then the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Section 43 have not been met, and since the signatures have not been witnessed, the document has not been executed in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. 

(You should read both sections of the Act. They are not very long).

Any reputable and professional company would know that a contract needs to be signed and dated, and that contracts and documents must comply with the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006.