UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

Have you shown us the whole of the contract as it appeared in their witness statement?

Who redacted the time stamps on some of the photos in their WS?


I have made the observations below based on the assumption that you have shown us the whole of the claimant's contract.





There is no mention of court on the stock image of the sign. Note that the image of the alleged sign is unreadable in daylight so there is no proof it is capable of forming a contract with the motorist at all, or that it has the same parking terms as that shown in the stock image that is held on a computer. The claimant is put to strict proof the sign in situe at the material time was the same as that in the stock image, and that it states that the motorist can be taken to court for breaching the terms displayed on the sign. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
The sign forms the parking contract. Terms not displayed on the sign cannot form a contract. 
Thornton v Shoe Lane applies.

The alleged event took place at night. The PPC's own images of your vehicle parked show a sign in the car park which is not readable even when using flash photography. You need to add the fact that following research after that alleged event you discovered that the sign in that image could not be seen at the material time because there was a high sided van parked adjacent to your vehicle that completely obscured the sign. Put the claimant to strict proof that the sign was visible and readable to the motorist at the material time.

The site map has been signed by Emily Nelligan on behalf of Albany Homes Limited and dated 2012.

The parking contract is allegedly between UKPC and Trinity Estates Property Management Limited, not Albany Homes Limited. This agreement does not include a site map, nor is there any proof that the site map from 2012 still applied at the material time. The claimant is put to strict proof that the site boundary map signed on behalf of Albany Homes Limited is a true and accurate representation of the site boundary and position of signage at the material time of the alleged parking event.

The parking contract only permits UKPC to issue parking charges to the driver, registered keeper, or owner of vehicles parked on the site.
It does not permit UKPC to conduct litigation. There is no explicit nor is there an implied right for UKPC to issue court claims nor enforce parking charges through the courts.

The parking contract has a fixed 12 month term, with no renewal clause. If the contract had been renewed either automatically or by manual re-application, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that a copy of the contract would have been provided to support the claimant's claim. No such contract has been provided. It is therefore reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities that the contract ended in 2016 and was not renewed.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Hi Fruitcake.. thank you so so much for taking the time to write a detailed explanation and I will use this word for word in court so thank you.


Have you shown us the whole of the contract as it appeared in their witness statement? Yes the contract with blue headers from 2015 is the entire 2 page contract - I did NOT put a black strike/line through sarah rochesters signature, it was already there along with the "agreed and signed" line. These lines were already there. My markings are thick solid black marks and dots.






Who redacted the time stamps on some of the photos in their WS? I did as I know the claimant is also reading this thread but one photo goes back to 2012, the image with the cream coloured building, this was their image. 


I have made the observations below based on the assumption that you have shown us the whole of the claimant's contract.





There is no mention of court on the stock image of the sign. Note that the image of the alleged sign is unreadable in daylight so there is no proof it is capable of forming a contract with the motorist at all, or that it has the same parking terms as that shown in the stock image that is held on a computer. The claimant is put to strict proof the sign in situe at the material time was the same as that in the stock image, and that it states that the motorist can be taken to court for breaching the terms displayed on the sign. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
The sign forms the parking contract. Terms not displayed on the sign cannot form a contract. 
Thornton v Shoe Lane applies.

The alleged event took place at night. The PPC's own images of your vehicle parked show a sign in the car park which is not readable even when using flash photography. You need to add the fact that following research after that alleged event you discovered that the sign in that image could not be seen at the material time because there was a high sided van parked adjacent to your vehicle that completely obscured the sign. Put the claimant to strict proof that the sign was visible and readable to the motorist at the material time.

EXACTLY, when I pulled in the car park at night time I recall a high top van to my right parked obscuring the sign and parked close to the brick wall.

The site map has been signed by Emily Nelligan on behalf of Albany Homes Limited and dated 2012. - I Have reached out to Albany homes and found some email addresses to make contact 

The parking contract is allegedly between UKPC and Trinity Estates Property Management Limited, not Albany Homes Limited. This agreement does not include a site map, nor is there any proof that the site map from 2012 still applied at the material time. The claimant is put to strict proof that the site boundary map signed on behalf of Albany Homes Limited is a true and accurate representation of the site boundary and position of signage at the material time of the alleged parking event. - Great valid point 

The parking contract only permits UKPC to issue parking charges to the driver, registered keeper, or owner of vehicles parked on the site.
It does not permit UKPC to conduct litigation. There is no explicit nor is there an implied right for UKPC to issue court claims nor enforce parking charges through the courts.

The parking contract has a fixed 12 month term, with no renewal clause. If the contract had been renewed either automatically or by manual re-application, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that a copy of the contract would have been provided to support the claimant's claim. No such contract has been provided. It is therefore reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities that the contract ended in 2016 and was not renewed.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true. - Thank you once again Fruit cake, I will print this off and take it to court as my notes to present. 

KeithP

Has their contract been renewed, or is there an automatic renewal clause in the contract somewhere?

 I have no idea but I will ask the judge this question during my case

 You need to have the answer to that before meeting the Judge.

Any hearing is not to ask questions of the Judge, and if you ask the Claimant's rep then, it is quite likely he will shrug his shoulders and say "I don't know".

Prepare yourself.

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

Has their contract been renewed, or is there an automatic renewal clause in the contract somewhere?

 I have no idea but I will ask the judge this question during my case

 You need to have the answer to that before meeting the Judge.

Any hearing is not to ask questions of the Judge, and if you ask the Claimant's rep then, it is quite likely he will shrug his shoulders and say "I don't know".

Prepare yourself.

Hi Keith, based on Fruitcakes response above I am going on the assumption that their contract has not been renewed and no automatic clause in the contract otherwise it would be visible on the exhibit. 

I will add it in my WS, I will add in all the points fruitcake just made and insert them IN my WS 

Fruitcake

Is the company number for Trinity Estates Property Management Limited legible on the version sent to you because I can't read it. Searching on the company name brings up lots of other companies as if Trinity are a holding or "shell" company. I cannot find a company registered at Companies house that matches a company number that looks anything like the one on the contract you have shown us.

If the number is clear on your version, please post it here.

IloveElephants

Fruitcake said:

Is the company number for Trinity Estates Property Management Limited legible on the version sent to you because I can't read it. Searching on the company name brings up lots of other companies as if Trinity are a holding or "shell" company. I cannot find a company registered at Companies house that matches a company number that looks anything like the one on the contract you have shown us.

If the number is clear on your version, please post it here.

Hi Fruitcake, what you see is what they sent me in their WS, I have attatched page 1,2 of their contract...

IloveElephants

IloveElephants said:

Fruitcake said:

Is the company number for Trinity Estates Property Management Limited legible on the version sent to you because I can't read it. Searching on the company name brings up lots of other companies as if Trinity are a holding or "shell" company. I cannot find a company registered at Companies house that matches a company number that looks anything like the one on the contract you have shown us.

If the number is clear on your version, please post it here.

Hi Fruitcake, what you see is what they sent me in their WS, I have attatched page 1 2


COMPANY - 2681186 trinity London Limited 

COMPANY - 2681186 trinity London Limited 

IloveElephants

Email just received from Trinity estates.com

"Trinity have not managed this site since 2020 and any contract would have been placed on behalf of our client. If you have a valid appeal made at the time of the ticket io would take this up with your new agent and their client.

 Due to age of the ticket and how long ago we lost management of the site we are unable to help further"

Fruitcake

Thanks, I can read the number now.

As you have already determined, Companies House shows that the company name associated with company number 2681186 is Trinity London Limited.
In other words, the company name on the contract does not match the name associated with the company number on the contract.

There are about six different companies called Trinity Estates *something* or Trinity (Estates) *something* registered at the same address. Doing a search on two or three of those companies reveals another half dozen company names but no details about the company called Trinity Estates *something*. This is why I said earlier that the company appears to be a shell or holding company encompassing lots of other companies.

I suggest you include a screenshots of the Companies House results to show the name on the contract does not match the company number on the contract.

In addition, Emily Rochester was never an officer of Trinity London Limited nor a person with significant control, and therefore never had the authority to form a contract with a third party.

The name of the company on the signature page is not given. It merely says, "client". There is no contract number on either page of the purported contract, nor even a page number. There is no proof that they are part of the same contract.

IloveElephants

Fruitcake, firstly thank you very much for taking the time to send me this informative reply.


As you have already determined, Companies House shows that the company name associated with company number 2681186 is Trinity London Limited.
In other words, the company name on the contract does not match the name associated with the company number on the contract. - Correct, it is different name.  - I will screenshot these and add them to my exhibit page. 

There are about six different companies called Trinity Estates *something* or Trinity (Estates) *something* registered at the same address. Yes I realised that, many businesses also use that address as a virtual office address.  Doing a search on two or three of those companies reveals another half dozen company names but no details about the company called Trinity Estates *something*. This is why I said earlier that the company appears to be a shell or holding company encompassing lots of other companies.  



I suggest you include a screenshots of the Companies House results to show the name on the contract does not match the company number on the contract. - I will do

In addition, Emily Rochester was never an officer of Trinity London Limited nor a person with significant control, and therefore never had the authority to form a contract with a third party. Yes I agree. I tried to google this person and cannot find her anywhere.

The name of the company on the signature page is not given. It merely says, "client". There is no contract number on either page of the purported contract, nor even a page number. There is no proof that they are part of the same contract. - Well spotted. I will mention this in my exhibit screenshot word for word.

Thank you so much Fruitcake 

IloveElephants

Thank you to Fruitcake. 

I have added in my Exhibits from the claimants WS, Please see my WS Copy, 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cU8lqf4dNBrMiab-lxZCYuRFJNJ-P1C/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115730171096675321578&rtpof=true&sd=true

Scroll to the end and see the added Exhibits with descriptions. Thank you to everyone