Private Parking Solutions claiming x2 PCNs of £100, x2 £70 admin and £92 interest!

Coupon-mad

Top looks good.  Your facts, etc.

If the bottom section was all in your defence (which I think it was) don't repeat it, verbatim.

Cut all repetition out, but make sure you do put some sentences that you write yourself, to briefly touch on 'no evidence of landowner authority' and of course attaching Excel v Wilkinson.

What are your exhibits?

exresident_privateland

Thank you. Ah yes you are correct. So should I somehow reword all these different points? (some of which use specific legal terms like "on all fours") Or just leave them out as they are in my defense? I can of course try and reword everything but it may take a while! 

I was actually going to take the "no evidence of landowner authority" out as they have a signed contract/agreement of providing parking control services from the director of the premises in their witness statement. Is this what this refers to? 

These are the exhibits: 

Exhibit A - The way in which (my) high sided vehicle served to block the sign.

Exhibit B - Signage directly adjacent to alleged contravention that is extremely hard to see (small white notices on a white wall with lots of other unrelated signage around)

Exhibit C - Other small and inconspicious parking regulation signs amongst other signage for comparison

Exhibit D - Relevant highlighted section of The British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) version 7 - January 2018, section 18.3

Exhibit E - comparison between ParkingEye signs referenced in the Beavis case and the Claimants signs

Exhibit F - ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis - Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198

Anything else you think? 

Once again thank you so much

exresident_privateland

Or do you mean post the actual pics?

Coupon-mad

Excel v Wilkinson, like I said...as standard.

Remove the repetition altogether.

You can show us your pics if you wish.

I was actually going to take the "no evidence of landowner authority" out as they have a signed contract/agreement of providing parking control services from the director of the premises in their witness statement. Is this what this refers to? 

Exact match name to the Claimant? In date? Signed by the actual landowner?  You can show that document to us too.

exresident_privateland

No it's signed by a "Managing Agent" ... so does that mean that still applies? 

exresident_privateland

Exhibit A - Blocked signage 

exresident_privateland

Exhibit B - Inconspicuous Signage directly adjacent to alleged contravention

exresident_privateland

Exhibit C - Claimant's Inconspicuous parking regulation signs amongst other signage for comparison

Coupon-mad

Good photos!  We agree about the signs.

Add a paragraph taking issue with that so-called landowner authority, if it is just that useless single page.

Observations:

1.  Not signed by PPS (London) Ltd.

2.  Not signed by the landowner, whoever they are.

3.  The person who has signed it is just a managing agent, not a person with title in the land.

4.  A contract needs two signatures.

5.  Nothing there about the commercial arrangements, restrictions, exemptions, what these 'tickets' are to be issued for (is it a permit scheme? No idea.  Is it tickets for overstay, no idea.  Parking out of bay lines or no parking overnight or out of hours when the gates are shut? What are those hours on offer to visitors? No idea.  Is parking prohibited altogether? No idea. How much is the parking charge allowed to be charged and who keeps that money?  No idea.  How many signs must this contractor display and what are their duties and responsibilities?  No idea. And who is making contracts with drivers, on whose behalf?  No idea.  What's the principal-agent relationship? No idea).

6.  Further, this page from 2017 only says they are an agent allowed to run a 'ticketing service'.  Nothing on this page grants the agent the standing to form contracts with drivers in their own name or to litigate.  This is in breach of para 7 of the BPA CoP (quote it in full).

7.  Signs are more prominent at that site from other parties, in particular the one headed NOTICE with large eye-catching red text, which sets out rules about access to the site 'by order of the High Cross Centre Management'.  Supports the view in point 6 that PPS (London) Ltd are mere agents with no standing.

Fairlie v Fenton applies.

Attach that transcript as another exhibit.  Google it.  A well recorded case that sets out the trite law that an agent cannot sue where their principal is disclosed (on signage, in this case). Agents must do more to make it clear that they are taking full liability and 'making the contract their own' otherwise they only have a bare licence to act 'on behalf of' the named principal.  That is all PPS appear to have.  Why is this agent suing, when the proper party would be the principal (if that Centre Management have that right) or indeed the landowner, who the BPA CoP requires must be evidenced to have provided a chain of authority.  There is nothing.

Johnersh

Of the 19 companies that Mr Hochhauser is a director of, Hccm Ltd does not appear to be one... #justsayin'