New Generation Parking Management Ltd/DCBL - County Court Claim Form

B789

Jumps from para 7.1 to para 20.

Galloglass

Could you tighten up #7 to spell it out to the judge the need not just for a sign but also the term in NGPM's contract with the Head Leaseholder/Managing agents. Puts pressure on them to produce an unredacted copy of their contract .

The claimant would have the court believe, that any sign visible to tenants - and not just the claimant's - creates a binding contract that overrides pre-existing rights granted to the tenant. They do so without providing evidence of a term in their contract with the landowner that facilitates such a change. 

Nate_J

Thanks very much all, I have now updated it.

On the hearing letter it states to send the WS to the court, the hearing is at County Court, Cardiff. Is there a particular email address that it can be addressed so that will then be filed on to them, or do I need to find out what their direct submission email is?

Grizebeck

enquiries.cardiff.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

Galloglass

Just a Heads up. You're commenting on another thread which you think is similar but it's not. Each case is decided on it's merits and in that other case the driver was visiting a resident while you are a resident with rights that pre-date NGPM. Don't let them take away rights you paid for in your lease.

The right to park adds tens of £1000s to a lease value so allowing them to remove it will cost you[r landlord] a lot more than a few hundred quid. Surprised the LL is not getting involved.

Nate_J

Galloglass said:

Just a Heads up. You're commenting on another thread which you think is similar but it's not. Each case is decided on it's merits and in that other case the driver was visiting a resident while you are a resident with rights that pre-date NGPM. Don't let them take away rights you paid for in your lease.

The right to park adds tens of £1000s to a lease value so allowing them to remove it will cost you[r landlord] a lot more than a few hundred quid. Surprised the LL is not getting involved.

Thanks for the info,

Yes, aware that the cases are different and should be treated as such, what's more concerning is the likelihood of getting the same judge as the other said case. Even so, it could be that they have a different view with this, as you've alluded to its different merits.

Coupon-mad

At least you know where she went wrong and what you need to prepare to show her the truth.

Nate_J

Hi all,

Been a bit of a hectic week, but my hearing went ahead on the 9th March, and I won!

Thanks again for all the input and guidance you've all provided, it has been invaluable!

As for the hearing, the judge went through quite a few points but I think his deciding factor was that there was no entrance signage displayed. The fact that I was a tenant there didn't hold much ground with him as far as I could tell. He was also particularly interested in the inflated costs from the case I added in the WS at the end and he took some time between him and the claimant solicitor to dig a bit deeper on that, but in the end the claimant provided another case file that essententially stated that they were lawful, and the solicitor also mentioned that the law or 'bill' that was put forward for that had been discontinued?

Thanks again all, was hoping for the case to be discontinued but we got there in the end!

Umkomaas

Well done, good win, especially as we've seen a couple of NGPM case go the wrong way in South Wales. 

the solicitor also mentioned that the law or 'bill' that was put forward for that had been discontinued?

That's wrong!  The 'Bill' has not been discontinued - far from it.  It's just two elements - the level of charge and whether a debt recovery fee should be added - that are in abeyance following the bleating and screeching from the private parking and debt collection sectors, funding a judicial review, and now pending an impact assessment and further consultation by the DLUHC. 

Please contribute to that consultation (imminent) and drive your own nails into this out of control sectors' coffins. See/bookmark/set alert the following thread where we will make the first announcement when the consultation document is released. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

B789

Well done @Nate_J for persevering through to the bitter end. A prime example of a 99 percenter.

I'm surprised though that the judge didn't look at the primacy of contract issue. At least you won on the signage.