Questions about Schedule 4 of POFA

Umkomaas

What about uploading the lease and the annexed Agreement? 

That would be useful. 

When you see their WS, you will see that they are insulting in the extreme to me (nasty even) and my intelligence as well as  to this forum.

If they're rattling on about internet templates and that your WS is 'nonsensical', I wouldn't be overly exercised in scanning and uploading that drivel, we've seen it so many times before. 

If you do a forum search on 'nonsensical', and check the WS against others from BWL shown on other threads, you will see that they are also relying on the regurgitation of template statements. If you find anything significantly different, then please let us see it, otherwise there's no need. 

ihatetrump

Just to comment further on their 'evidence'

They have supplied 14 photos of the vehicle parked on the non-relevant land - spanning a total period of 2 minutes and 12 seconds (first to last) - not a grace period in anyone's interpretation and certainly not evidence of the 15 minute contravention that is alleged. 

Signage photos are 3 in total - one taken at the time of the 'alleged contravention' and another taken 2 years earlier (I don't even believe it is from this location) and another taken 4 months after the incident (again I don't believe it is from this location) - such sloppy work. 

ihatetrump

I have a scanned version of their WS - I can redact my own personal information and reference, that's no problem. There are other references in the WS however that will identify me (location, dates, times etc) - should these be redacted also?

KeithP

ihatetrump said:

I have a scanned version of their WS - I can redact my own personal information and reference, that's no problem. There are other references in the WS however that will identify me (location, dates, times etc) - should these be redacted also?

Leave location and dates visible. How will they identify you?

ihatetrump

They note the time the vehicle was observed parked (all times to the minute and second) and also the time the parking payment was made (which was a little time later).

There is also reference to the Judge (by name), date and time of the hearing.

There are page and paragraph references to their evidence bundle - which all make the referencing unique to this WS.

There is reference also in one paragraph to a specific telephone conversation (I basically telling them where to shove their claim- politely of course!) .

As noted earlier in the thread and based on the responses given, they are unable to hold the keeper liable under POFA (non relevant land and therefore non-compliance with NTK requirements of POFA. Here's their relevant paragraphs from their WS:

Fruitcake

Remove your personal data. The claimant sent the data in the WS so they already know what it says. They know who you are and will get to see what you have to say about them very soon.
The name of the judge will already be in the public domain. Remove the date and time of the hearing if you wish.

If they are reading this, so what. They already know they issued a claim for an alleged event on non relevant land.

UK MPs across all parties have referred to these unregulated private parking companies as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers. Based on that, I wouldn't worry about what the PPC thinks or says about you.

Other than that, JFDI. Get on and show us the WS asap so you can include our comments in your WS.

Coupon-mad

A big fat so what, is indeed the answer when parking firms and robo claims solicitors trawl this forum to identify and intimidate defendants.  That conduct says more about them than you and the Judge will notice their rudeness about you and this forum (yawn, seen it all before)!  

ihatetrump

Ok - apologies for the delay here - all comments and advice noted and appreciated - sorry to make you yawn @Coupon-mad !!!

here's the claimants WS (with redactions):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4a5n0akbw50n48/BW Legal Witness Statement redacted.pdf?dl=0

Accompanied by letter stating that their client will not be attending and will be represented by an advocate (presumably BWL?)

And the car park Lease with MKDP:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pk0yd5yk77z6iqe/Napier Lease.pdf?dl=0 

And the Management Agreement attached to the lease: (note that clause 13 is missing - this is presumably an outline of the financial terms (the rent)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s64r9fhu3pq86ef/Napier Management Agreement.pdf?dl=0

And their signage Photos (note the dates - 2 years before and 5 months after and one at the time!) 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9gkfu9opcw2am9f/Napier Signage Photos.pdf?dl=0

First photo is typical BWL - this is not from this site - says it is private land, when here is the real photo from Google Streetview - PUBLIC CAR PARK:



Also note this sign to the left:



Although difficult to read here, it says Manual Cameras and APNR in use - not sure of the legality here as it is Council owned and there is no evidence of planning permission for APNR cameras on the MK Planning Portal - is this legal?

The land is without doubt owned by Milton Keynes Council - not relevant land under terms of POFA?

Amended Order and Notice of Hearing received this weekend from the Court - filing deadline of July 9th. Now BWL have filed their WS (in advance of receiving this notice) are they able to amend and dispute anything in my WS? (not yet drafted - but now working on it). I do note that the hearing remains set at 30 minutes - whereas other hearings seem to allow much longer - strange but then that's the Court system I guess.

ihatetrump

After much reading and research over the last few days, not only on this wonderful forum but pepipoo also, I feel confident that this car park is not relevant land and therefore any NTK under POFA does not apply, even though in my case the PPC issued it under that basis (copy earlier in the thread) - however, it would be great to get the opinion of those on the forum who are infinitely more qualified than I - you know who you are!

ihatetrump

I'm continuing to work on my WS and have been using the traffic penalty tribunal website as a reference point for TRO's issued in Milton Keynes, which (in my opinion) covers the car park in question and the multiple TRO's issued by Milton Keynes Council seem to clearly demonstrate that the Council has control over parking at this site both before and after the inception of the lease to the PPC (which is only a month to month lease) - and further evidencing that this is not relevant land. Any opinion here from the experts please? Happy to post the links if relevant.