PCM/Gladstones Court Claim

Coupon-mad

What I'm saying is that with this particular ticket, I am not in the position like some people where it was issued in  unreasonable circumstances etc...

You are. It is normal to unload stuff.

Read Jopson v Homeguard (it's 'persuasive' on Judges due to it being on appeal to HHJ Harris QC).  It has clout.

Why not read other threads almost exactly like yours, e.g. the defence drafted by @angry_vcs  - also from today.

What happened to change your lease so that cars were allowed...what did that variation or update say and when (year)?

Le_Kirk

DrAculaGonzo said:

With your support I feel emboldened to challenge, but really need to understand in my head what my defence is (and please don't refer me to all the 50 points in the proposed defence which I have mostly read, because they are legal speak and I just want a 2 sentence summary for a layman...Thanks

There are 27 paragraphs in the template defence.  You only need to add your defence (refuting what is claimed in the POC) as paragraphs 2 & 3, which could be a two sentence summary and then you can write a witness statement later in the process that details all the shenanigans that the PPC and the MA have been up to and explaining why it was thought OK to UNLOAD there.

DrAculaGonzo

Coupon-mad said:

What I'm saying is that with this particular ticket, I am not in the position like some people where it was issued in  unreasonable circumstances etc...

You are. It is normal to unload stuff.

Read Jopson v Homeguard (it's 'persuasive' on Judges due to it being on appeal to HHJ Harris QC).  It has clout.

Why not read other threads almost exactly like yours, e.g. the defence drafted by @angry_vcs  - also from today.

What happened to change your lease so that cars were allowed...what did that variation or update say and when (year)?

Fair enough. I thought having lived there for years with signage clearly visible my defence was weakended/non-existent, but if you say this doesn't matter, i.e. the common sense overrides the "formal" restrictions I'm happy to carry on. I will read into al of your suggestions fully tomorrow and prep a defence and post here. 
As for your lost point - the lease didn't change to allow cars - did I make any statements to contradict this?
To be clear: 
- lease was always clear - no public parking - the development is car free
- the road opposite my building is a road with no restrictions so no permits are necessary to park there
- we have off site car park for which we apply via MA/Landlord/PCM - spaces are limited
- loading bays were always yellow grid - early on not enforced, but for years now fully enforced

DrAculaGonzo

Le_Kirk said:

DrAculaGonzo said:

With your support I feel emboldened to challenge, but really need to understand in my head what my defence is (and please don't refer me to all the 50 points in the proposed defence which I have mostly read, because they are legal speak and I just want a 2 sentence summary for a layman...Thanks

There are 27 paragraphs in the template defence.  You only need to add your defence (refuting what is claimed in the POC) as paragraphs 2 & 3, which could be a two sentence summary and then you can write a witness statement later in the process that details all the shenanigans that the PPC and the MA have been up to and explaining why it was thought OK to UNLOAD there.

well, that cuts to the core of what I'm saying and - back to my point - maybe I'm too sheepish
Why did my wife thought it was ok to unload there? Because otherwise she would have to carry shopping few hundred meters, but given the signage being visible isn't this defence without legal basis? i.e. ultimately signage was clear.

I will do some reading, submit acknowledgement and draft my defence tomorrow and look forward to receiving your feedback.
I have to say you guys are great, regardless of the outcome, to devote time to help people like me

Given how lost I am in this (despite having some brains) and refences to just search the forum, are you able to give me some keywords and phrases to look for other than the ones already mentioned, e.g. Jopson v Homeguard?

Really appreciate the help! Bless you guys!

Trainerman

Fair enough. I thought having lived there for years with signage clearly visible my defence was weakended/non-existent, but if you say this doesn't matter, 

That depends on what the signs say .... or don't say. I.E No Parking, well you were not, you were unloading. So tell us, what exactly do they say?

Mouse007

DrAculaGonzo said:

Given how lost I am in this (despite having some brains) and refences to just search the forum, are you able to give me some keywords and phrases to look for other than the ones already mentioned, e.g. Jopson v Homeguard?

Jopson v Homeguard is an easy read, second time round you will get it. Stopping to unload is NOT parking. Once you get that you can start to build your defence arguments.

Then stand back and say to yourself, hang on what if the words on that sign said you must strip naked and dance if you are on this land? Words on a sign are just words. Do they have any legal authority?

What rights did someone have to put that sign up, what rights do they have to enforce those conditions?

Keep engaging with us and we will get you there my friend

Coupon-mad

Why did my wife thought it was ok to unload there? Because otherwise she would have to carry shopping few hundred meters, but given the signage being visible isn't this defence without legal basis? i.e. ultimately signage was clear.

You REALLY need to read Jopson v Homeguard!!  There were obviously signs up at Miss Jopson's estate too... this is no different.

HHJ Harris sets out the legal position.

DrAculaGonzo

Trainerman said:

Fair enough. I thought having lived there for years with signage clearly visible my defence was weakended/non-existent, but if you say this doesn't matter, 

That depends on what the signs say .... or don't say. I.E No Parking, well you were not, you were unloading. So tell us, what exactly do they say?

OK, starting too look at all of this now. Copy of sign is below. Hope you can read it.

Coupon-mad

It's fairly irrelevant, because the car was legitimately unloading, not parked.

But good to see it's unreadable twaddle.

DrAculaGonzo

Coupon-mad said:

It's fairly irrelevant, because the car was legitimately unloading, not parked.

But good to see it's unreadable twaddle.

Thanks Coupon-mad

Quick one while I'm working on the defence in the background and reading into all of your suggestions. 

Early on you suggested:
"use the standard wording found in other defences about:

primacy of contract and

derogation from grant and

the breach of the Landlord & Tenant Act."

Given all the clarifications I have given is all of this still relevant?

As much as I will always try, I don't think I will ever get to understand the actual legal points themselves so appreciate your guidance and help. I.e. I need to be led by hand a little bit here,

Thanks