Court Claim - Premier Park Ltd

Umkomaas

I haven't submitted my own evidence bundle yet. The deadline is 4pm on the 27th of October.

Wow, that's tight. Only four days prior to the hearing, and two of those days are Saturday and Sunday.  Please run a safety first check on the dates - I'm just so surprised that Gladstones have submitted so early if 27/10 is the deadline. 

EXEMPLAR WITNESS STATEMENTS

The following Witness Statements are seen as good examples from which to work. Use them as the bases on which to construct your own. Note - this isn't suggesting you just copy and paste them, you must describe the circumstances pertaining to your parking event. 

@wobs2k

@aphex007

@daiapolon2021

@anged

The one by @aphex007 is most often recommended. 

I've very briefly scanned Gs WS. You need to do a check on the signatory of the landowner agreement as I can't find any information that suggests the signatory holds any position in order for them to execute a contract with the PPC. 

@Fruitcake holds good information about who can and who can't sign contracts. There was one private parking court case that was thrown out because the signatory had no formal standing, @Fruitcake might have the details to add to your WS. 

Coupon-mad

Are you SURE the deadline is days before the hearing? I suspect that's just an additional date for electronic bundles to be emailed again in readiness.

The deadline to first file & serve your WS and evidence is never a few days before the hearing.  I have never seen it.

I think you've missed reading the earlier Notice of Allocation which almost certainly said not later than 14 days before.

Fruitcake

"Whooly"?

Who proofreads this stuff?

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

"Whooly"?

Who proofreads this stuff?

Maybe the Legal Assistant's supervising 'Principle' (sic). Not much supervising going on there!

Fruitcake

What does the lease/AST/property rental agreement say about parking and permits etcetera?

The second paragraph of the contract says,

"Only items issued by the Company may be used in conjunction with this Service, unless an existing or in house permit system is agreed on prior to the Service commencing."

The contract does not say with whom the agreement must be made. My interpretation would be that the lease/AST or other property rental agreement is an existing in-house agreement made between the resident and landlord that cannot be altered or removed by an unregulated company that was not a party to the pre-existing property rental contract.

There is nothing being offered by the claimant that the resident does not already have, therefore there can be no consideration nor acceptance, and therefore no contract between the claimant and resident can be formed. Any rights to quiet enjoyment and the rights to park and for visitors to park will be passed to the visitor directly from the resident.

My interpretation of the claimant's contract is supported by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,

"69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

I would suggest that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would agree with me. 

Deku_

I'm reading and re-reading my Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) letter, which is dated 27th July 2022.

It states:

"The parties shall each send to the court and to each other by no later than 4.00pm on the 27 October 2022 written statements [preferably typed] of all persons who are to give evidence at the trial. This includes the parties themselves"

The only other deadlines I'm seeing here is the 20th of October to supply an email address (for the MS teams invitation) and a date of 4th October for the claimant to pay the court fee of £27.

I don't think I'm missing anything on this letter but I'm a bit concerned as it certainly doesn't sound normal based on your comments. 

@Umkomaas Thank you for those examples, I will set to reading them.

Fruitcake said:

What does the lease/AST/property rental agreement say about parking and permits etcetera?

The second paragraph of the contract says,

"Only items issued by the Company may be used in conjunction with this Service, unless an existing or in house permit system is agreed on prior to the Service commencing."

The contract does not say with whom the agreement must be made. My interpretation would be that the lease/AST or other property rental agreement is an existing in-house agreement made between the resident and landlord that cannot be altered or removed by an unregulated company that was not a party to the pre-existing property rental contract.

There is nothing being offered by the claimant that the resident does not already have, therefore there can be no consideration nor acceptance, and therefore no contract between the claimant and resident can be formed. Any rights to quiet enjoyment and the rights to park and for visitors to park will be passed to the visitor directly from the resident.

My interpretation of the claimant's contract is supported by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,

"69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

I would suggest that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would agree with me. 

Thanks for this.
The residents rental contract has nothing included about the parking situation at the flats at all. He does, however, have a single permit for his allocated parking space (which he has hard-fixed to his vehicle yet get's parking notices from this same company consistently, but that is neither here nor there).

There is nothing in the way of visitor permits or otherwise that he (or I) is aware of.

Coupon-mad

I think the court clerk made a typo and they meant to put 17 October...!

It will have been intended as 14 days.

It is never four says, trust me.

Go by 17th October as your deadline, or the solicitors might object that they have had insufficient time to read and consider with their client, your WS bundle 

Deku_

That would make sense. I never considered it but the 27th does seem a rather random date.

I'll be thankful Gladstones have sent their pack through early or I wouldn't have caught this at all.

I'll run with the assumption that the 17th is the proper Deadline. I will use the next couple of days to read through the forum and put something together for my W/S.

@Fruitcake I am having trouble digesting your comment, could you possibly assist me with my understanding?

Is the suggestion here that the existing Tennant Agreement between the Resident + Landlord could constitute as a pre-existing in house permit system which cannot be altered / over ruled by the Private Parking Company. Furthermore, as the claimant has not suggested that such an in-house system does NOT exist, there can be no contract entered between the Defendant and the claimant?

Or are we saying that the contract is too vague, and therefore could be interpreted to say that a pre-existing in-house agreement could potentially be in place between a Resident / Landlord + any visitor and the claimant has not offered anything on the contrary to show no such agreement was in place?

Sorry if I'm being slow on the uptake; attempting to reiterate it for my WS.

The second paragraph of the contract says,

"Only items issued by the Company may be used in conjunction with this Service, unless an existing or in house permit system is agreed on prior to the Service commencing."

The contract does not say with whom the agreement must be made. My interpretation would be that the lease/AST or other property rental agreement is an existing in-house agreement made between the resident and landlord that cannot be altered or removed by an unregulated company that was not a party to the pre-existing property rental contract.

There is nothing being offered by the claimant that the resident does not already have, therefore there can be no consideration nor acceptance, and therefore no contract between the claimant and resident can be formed. Any rights to quiet enjoyment and the rights to park and for visitors to park will be passed to the visitor directly from the resident.

My interpretation of the claimant's contract is supported by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,

"69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

I would suggest that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would agree with me. 

Additionally, I have not admitted to being the driver in my Defence. I was intending on non-admission in my W/S, however the Judge could ask point blank if I was the driver, I assume? Can I take the stance of making the claimant prove this or would this be seen as being uncooperative / combative in court?
I had another driver on my Insurance at the time of this ticket - a person who regularly visited the same property in the same vehicle. Often, we would travel together to the property in this vehicle and it would be random who would do the driving. Is this a reasonable doubt to cast?

Coupon-mad

 I have not admitted to being the driver in my Defence. I was intending on non-admission in my W/S, however the Judge could ask point blank if I was the driver, I assume? Can I take the stance of making the claimant prove this or would this be seen as being uncooperative / combative in court?

Yes, it would look bad, but you don't need to be so cagey, just be honest in the WS and say this:

"I had another driver on my Insurance at the time of this ticket - a person who regularly visited the same property in the same vehicle. Often, we would travel together to the property in this vehicle and it would be random who would do the driving."

Deku_

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

I'm in the midst of drafting the bundle. Is it appropriate to reference the Claimants bundle within my own? Or would I be better taking images from their Bundle and including them in my own?

I've also reworded my statement on who the driver was. Perhaps it's still too strong?

For Reference I've got the following as parts of my statement, very much in a draft status. I've basically ripped @Fruitcake's comment at present, I endeavour to digest and write it in my own words so I can have proper understanding + make sure I can back it up should it be questioned on the day.

• The Defendant and 1 other person are insured to drive the vehicle which was has been given the ticket. Both the Defendant and the other driver would regularly visit these premises using this vehicle as transport, often together, with the person driving being random each time. I cannot confidently say either person was the driver on the 20/08/2020. Nothing has been provided by the claimant to prove who was driving the vehicle. I put the claimant to strict proof  and would suggest anything short cast’s reasonable doubt over who the recipient of this notice should be.  

•   <REFERENCE TO CUSTOMER LICENSE AGREEMENT> Bullet point 2 of the Customer License Agreement states “Only items issued by the Company may be used in conjunction with this Service, unless an existing or in house permit system is agreed on prior to the Service commencing.” The contract does not state with whom an in house permit system must be agreed. My interpretation would be that the Resident’s Tennant Agreement is a pre-existing in house agreement, and therefore cannot be overwritten by any third party that was not present at the time of this agreement. There is nothing being offered by the claimant that the resident does not already have, therefore there can be no consideration nor acceptance, and therefore no contract between the claimant and resident can be formed. Any rights to quiet enjoyment and the rights to park and for visitors to park will be passed to the visitor directly from the resident.

 My interpretation of the claimant's contract is supported by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,  

"69 Contract terms that may have different meanings 

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail." 

•  The claimants Exhibit GS-3 shows signs with multiple versions of signs – some of which have been amended with different wording. As both variants of this wording have been submitted as exhibits from, I believe we can assume both are valid.