Court Defence – Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics – DCBLegal - Milford Place Debt Claim

Fruitcake

craigbainton said:

Forgot to include the IPC Code Of Practice around grace periods, updated:
https://we.tl/t-UJ0DksKQ2u

I'm not happy to agree to that site's terms of service or to have their cookies installed on my computer. I don't know enough about that site to know if it is safe to use.
Perhaps you could upload it to dropbox or similar.

craigbainton

@Fruitcake
Here you go
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4riknc0bvrm6nkj/Witness Statement and Exhibits - H0KF6767 - Combined.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

You have personal data showing, including your full name.
You need to take it down, redact it, then repost.

craigbainton

@Fruitcake
Redacted:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7d0dmlwbj101gy/Witness Statement and Exhibits - H0KF6767 - Combined_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Looks OK so far but seems to say nothing about putting them to proof of landowner authority and also it's silent about the false added 'debt recovery' costs that didn't happen and were never incurred by the parking firm, and even if they did, costs of the letter demands are part and parcel of the business model and are required to be within the £100 parking charge itself.  That's part of the rationale of ParkingEye v Beavis in the Supreme Court.    This is covered in the recent WS example by @jrhys and you also need the transcript of Excel v Wilkinson, as he used.

Talking of transcripts, you need to make it clear that Jopson was an APPEAL and it was by HHJ Harris (not 'Judge Harris') and you need the actual transcript, not a copy and paste:

A distinction supported by Judge Harris in Paragraph 19 ofthe Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services Limited case (9GF0A9E)(see exhibit-11).

The Parking Prankster's case law pages have that transcript.

Redx

I havent read the WS, but any of your exhibits should have your initials and a number , not Exhibit11 , so if your name was JOHN ALAN SMITH it would be JAS/01 , JAS/02 etc

Fruitcake

You definitely need, Not the Landowner, No standing to issue charges or court claims in their own name, no contract with or flowing from the landowner.
Amend the last sentence accordingly if the scammers include a contract with their WS in time for us to rip it apart before you need to send your WS.
Contracts generally don't comply with Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and/or are not with the landowner.
If the contract is redacted by the scammers, then have a look at the Redactions in disclosure thread by Johnersh.

The Jopson vs Homeguard transcript can be found here. It's right at the bottom. pf the web page.

Case Law (parking-prankster.com)

Would it be advisable to produce the whole tenancy agreement so the scammers can't say that they believe the requirement to display a permit is on another page?
This shows the predatory nature of the scammers who are quite happy to override the rights of people and ignore the law.

Planning permission is required for pole mounted ANPR scameras.
Advertising consent is required for signs greater than 0.3m2 as defined by the Town and Country Planning Act. Not having it is a criminal offence, but only the council can pursue this. (Don't mention the last bit if you intend to use it.)
Again it shows the scammer's complete disregard for the law.

Signs within the car park are deliberately placed on a boundary fence such that they cannot be seen when other cars are parked in front of them.

As an aside, the sign contains an illegal clause as it requires a disabled motorist to display a disabled badge in order to park in a disabled bay. A disabled badge is not the only indicator of a disability, and the Government Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land. Requiring a disabled person with protected characteristics to do something that an able bodied person does not have to do in order to obtain reasonable adjustments for their disability is a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

craigbainton

@Fruitcake

Thanks for all the feedback so far, i will be adding to my witness statement tonight before sending tomorrow.
I received the claimaints witness statement this morning:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvp1agkc7ohlkdw/Paginated WS_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Johnersh

Interesting. The contract doesn't appear to define who the client is at all. As for the signatory "who dat?" It appears to be a free Hotmail account.  There's got to be significant doubt without at least checking further docs, that there is any authority under that agreement 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

Interesting. The contract doesn't appear to define who the client is at all. As for the signatory "who dat?" It appears to be a free Hotmail account.  There's got to be significant doubt without at least checking further docs, that there is any authority under that agreement 

All the PSAs attached to Walton's Witness Statements have been pretty unimpressive, with poor spelling and grammatical errors, and with the 'landowner' details scribbled in in biro. We have yet to see whether a Judge is equally unimpressed. I can't recall any getting to an actual hearing.