CASE WON Student Accommodation with free parking 13 May 2022 at 5:04PM edited 27 January at 3:33PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 80 replies 3.9K views

Umkomaas

The collective noun for a family of mice is 'a mischief'. 

PPS might just have unleashed triple trouble for themselves! 🐁 🐁 🐁 

Mouse007

Directions Questionnaire received, completed and returned as expected.

I love how gmail treats emails from BW Legal - both auto replies went to spam

Mouse007

 Well this has escalated nicely.

The Court Ordered the Claimant PPS to produce their WS by 31/10. It arrived from BW on time, just.

The Court Ordered us to produce our WS by 14/11. Snigger

The Court Ordered the Claimant to include a copy of the agreement giving them authority to regulate parking in their WS.

BW supplied an unredacted copy of the contract between the property agent and PPS.

I have downloaded the Land Registry entry for the property showing someone else owns the property. No Landowner authority then.

And then, lo and behold - I find my son and wife exchanged numerous text and we have screen shots of contemporaneous records.

Savage attack from BW for using an internet forum template - and skeleton arguement to dismiss defence. I'll upload as soon as I can.

but for now - current draft is

Point 25. The mere existence of specialist parking forums is a direct consequence of the industrial scale of the operations and activities of rogue private parking companies. The one referred to (YOU GUYS) provides an extensive and well researched wealth of information. There is nothing wrong in using a reliable online resource.

Point 26 is a disingenuous and contemptuous attempt to intimidate and belittle me before the Court. The Claimant can not possibly know the extent or otherwise of my knowledge. They know nothing about my education, experience and academic capacity. They have no idea what resources are available to me, how much research I undertook or why I decided to use an available template. A template that was sufficiently well drafted that it predicted at point 14 in my defence that the Claimant would attempt to pour scorn on and rubbish my knowledge. The Claimant’s solicitor has been seen before on a regular basis.

This is not a simple small claims matter for a contractual charge payable for breach of a contractual licence. This is about standing up to a rogue PPC and their money making machine. There is nothing unreasonable about attempting to expose them for that.

The Claimant has chosen to use this attack as justification for not addressing the technical points in my defence. In doing so they have overlooked some key points - presumable hoping they are beyond my knowledge. I think the lack of landowner authority exposed above clearly demonstrates otherwise.

 note to self   BLAST THEM OVER UNANSWERED DEFENCE POINTS


Point 27 is disingenuous and I stand by my entire defence. The Claimant can not possibly know if the copied internet content was beyond my knowledge when I signed my defence.

Point 28 is disingenuous. There is nothing unreasonable about using a well drafted template from a reliable source. It is presumptuous of the Claimant to suggest this was done without fully researching, checking and understanding all the legal points. The Claimant can not possibly know if the information was beyond my knowledge when I signed my defence.

Coupon-mad

Savage attack from BW for using an internet forum template - and skeleton argument to dismiss defence. I'll upload as soon as I can.

No need.  We don't need to see that again. Search the forum for nonsensical and change to 'recent' (not best match).

Your letter has been seen in multiple cases (with pictures of it) and you might like to copy a few and put them on a PDF as an exhibit.  As a Judge said last week when dismissing a claim where BW had accused a defendant of using a template, but of course used templates themselves:

"you live by the principle, you die by the principle".

Mouse007

Coupon-mad said:

Savage attack from BW for using an internet forum template - and skeleton argument to dismiss defence. I'll upload as soon as I can.

No need. 

I should have separated that last sentance and been a bit clearer, I was thinking about the lack of landowner authority.

A general manager (not a director) at the student property agent (company A) signed up PPS to manage parking at a property owned by company B. My son's tenancy agreement was with company B. No landowner's authority document produced as required under IPC's CoP and demanded by the Judge, just the invalid third party contract.

That's a bonus on top of Pimacy of Contract. AST completely silent on parking permits.

Hearing date next January if it gets that far.

Mouse007

Witness statement being proof read by son and mother as I type.

Last week we decided to write to all the students in the property now and ask if they were having any problems. Just had a long reply from one who had 9 months of hell with Premier Parking Solutions - it is such a good reply it has been added to the WS after sequence of events as:

"I have today received an email from a current student resident of 7 SA describing the same problems and experiences that I have described above. I have added this as Exhibit 16 to illustrate how shambolic the whole arrangement between CSL and PPS was. I do not believe there was any genuine interest in car parking management. I aver that PPS persuaded CSL that they needed a parking management solution so they could exploit unworldly students."

Mouse007

Witness Statement sent, receipt from Court received before 4pm.

Ed2022

Thank you for attached the witness statement sent.

Fruitcake

That looks very good.

I suggest a few minor alterations and additions.

You mention the signs in the Beavis case so I think you should include a copy of the PE sign as an exhibit with an image of the claimant's sign as a comparison.

Para 37 might read better if the order of "acceptance" and "consideration" were swapped.

At para 68 you refer to a lack of due diligence to identify the landowner. They should also have carried out due diligence to determine if residents already had existing rights before they commenced operations at the site by checking ASTs and head lease (if there is one).

Para 71 should read "moot points". (I believe the word meeting is derived from the word "moot").

Para 84, add "2018" after GDPR, and perhaps add DPA 2015 as well. This assumes you have previously explained he acronyms in full.

Para 104, rather than say the lack of system notes is no surprise, perhaps you could say it shows a lack of efficiency or possible an attempt to deceive, although the latter may be a bit strong. You don't want to upset the judge.

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

Savage attack from BW for using an internet forum template - and skeleton argument to dismiss defence. I'll upload as soon as I can.

No need.  We don't need to see that again. Search the forum for nonsensical and change to 'recent' (not best match).

Your letter has been seen in multiple cases (with pictures of it) and you might like to copy a few and put them on a PDF as an exhibit.  As a Judge said last week when dismissing a claim where BW had accused a defendant of using a template, but of course used templates themselves:

"you live by the principle, you die by the principle".

Were you referring to this?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79215572#Comment_79215572
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6311013/urgent-assistance-ccc-defence-deadline-today/p2