Court Case for unloading bulky furniture outside own (rented) residence

Fruitcake

UnloadTheShelves said:

Thank you!!! I will try to include all that too even if theoretically "little things" in relation to my case. I'll do anything to make them want to discontinue the case as I can't take the stress 

Just popped down and the stock imagine is identical to the one on site of the alleged parking event. Is that unfortunate or fortunate? 

It matters not what the actual signs at the site look like if they have not been included in the claimant's WS. You are defending the claim as issued, and their WS as issued. You should still state that the claimant has only produced a stock image of a random sign with no proof that they were installed at the site on the date of the alleged event. They cannot therefore rely on anything other than their stock image, unless you include images of signs at the site. My advice is, don't go helping the claimant. You only have to respond to claims and their evidence; nothing else.
I hope that makes sense.

You might say, a reputable company would not display signs with charges that are prohibited by law. Since these stock image of the sign included as evidence in their witness statement, signed under a statement of truth, show additional charges that have been prohibited since 2012, the implication must be that the stock images is old and out of date, and not representative of what was at the material location at the material time. 

For your question about Thornton v Shoe lane, yes you would have to include the whole transcript. I'll let others advise, but you might want to omit reference to this case if it is going to cause print limit problems. However, if the court is not too far away, you could deliver the bundle in person, making sure it is correctly marked with the words witness Statement, details of the case number, court date, or whatever else is needed.
Alternatively, you could say something like, it is trite law that terms and conditions cannot be added or changed after the contract has been agreed. Trite law means, everyone knows this ... or, it is common knowledge that ...
The contract (the Ts and Cs on the signs) is agreed by conduct, (agreed by the motorist remaining on site).

Fruitcake

I've just noticed that the signs refer to The Independent Parking Community.
Their name changed around 8 years ago when they re-registered the name at Companies House as United Trade and Industry Limited. They then started using The International Parking Committee as a trading style, otherwise every member would have had to change every reference of the IPC on signs and documents.

What this means is, any sign that mentions the Independent Parking Committee is around eight years out of date, which supports your defence point that the stock image is out of date and does not represent the signs actually at the site at the time of the alleged event.

Has the claimant provided you with a copy of their landowner/landholder contract? It would be interesting to see what ATA name is on there, and who signed the contract for PCM and the landholder. Please show us a copy of the contract if you have it. In fact, please show us their WS. Upload it to a web hosting site such as Dropbox or similar, then post the link here. Make sure it doesn't require a password or an account for us to access, and make sure your personal data is redacted. 

Coupon-mad

Thornton v Shoe Lane doesn't need exhibiting as it's 'famous' case law every Judge who has studied contract law will recall/know or be able to find.

No-one ever exhibits Thornton v Shoe Lane, or Vine v Waltham Forest, nor the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis.

All are very well known case law which is why the Template Defence includes them, as do most example WS. 

UnloadTheShelves

KeithP said:

As you say, the picture of the sign you have shown us Today at 5:13PM appears to be of an identical sign to that posted earlier - Today at 2:39PM.

Both those images show that the sign is several years old.
The Independent Parking Committee changed it's name to International Parking Community early in 2016 - over eight years ago.

Oooh I didn't know, I will definitely mention that in my WS when I also question them about the agreement with Landowner/Landlord with a housing association from 2016, when we live here since 2018 and the landlord/landowner has changed!! The 2016 Housing association no longer exists, ha! Seems like they haven't changed their parking signage either.... so silly to have to argue with a s***y company like this!

UnloadTheShelves

Fruitcake said:

It matters not what the actual signs at the site look like if they have not been included in the claimant's WS. You are defending the claim as issued, and their WS as issued. You should still state that the claimant has only produced a stock image of a random sign with no proof that they were installed at the site on the date of the alleged event. They cannot therefore rely on anything other than their stock image, unless you include images of signs at the site. My advice is, don't go helping the claimant. You only have to respond to claims and their evidence; nothing else.
I hope that makes sense.

Very unfortunately in their photo "evidence" that's also an exhibit in their WS they did include a photo that shows the signage across the road from where my husband stopped (it's tiny!) and then a close up photo of the sign as part of this "evidence". So yes, I probably better abstain from trying to call them out on this as well in order not to help them.

UnloadTheShelves

Coupon-mad said:

Thornton v Shoe Lane doesn't need exhibiting as it's 'famous' case law every Judge who has studied contract law will recall/know or be able to find.

No-one ever exhibits Thornton v Shoe Lane, or Vine v Waltham Forest, nor the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis.

All are very well known case law which is why the Template Defence includes them, as do most example WS. 

Thank you, great news! I am a bit overwhelmed right now with all the changes I need to do to the WS now.... I will deffo add this plus the signage being out of date (deff won't manage going through Bull as well though).

would it all be possible please to check over my WS if it's good to go (I corrected the typo in Claimants name to CONTROL and will number para and exhibits accordingly etc) but I genuinely cannot do much more than I've done so far, so hoping that there will be no more major corrections needed? Would really REALLY appreciate feedback as to - once Shoe Lane and outdated signage is added to my WS- it is overall ok to print and send off. THANK YOU MASSIVELY!!

Coupon-mad

Yes - post it across two replies so we don't have to click on links.

UnloadTheShelves

Fruitcake said:

Has the claimant provided you with a copy of their landowner/landholder contract? It would be interesting to see what ATA name is on there, and who signed the contract for PCM and the landholder. Please show us a copy of the contract if you have it. In fact, please show us their WS. Upload it to a web hosting site such as Dropbox or similar, then post the link here. Make sure it doesn't require a password or an account for us to access, and make sure your personal data is redacted. 

I will post the Contract which looks more like an agreement to me, will cover name of our estate but leave the Company name which is NOT our current landlord/landowner.

As for their WS, i would love to try to get round to covering personal data out but have no idea how to use dropbox or what would be similar to it? I have never used dropbox I am afraid? 

I don't mind emailing it to you after i try to cover all personal details if you're happy to share dropbox here instead of me? 

UnloadTheShelves

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - post it across two replies so we don't have to click on links.

Do you mean my WS? I posted it earlier today at few mins past 4pm. In two separate posts. Does it show for you please? Thank you

(I am feeling especially wobbly about my Unreasonable charges para but will try to edit accordingly with the excellent advice Re the 70GBP i got here since then)

UnloadTheShelves

This is their agreement from their WS as requested by Fruitcake. Edited in red is the name of the housing estate where we live. 

Covered by black is what the Claimant has done so I have no idea what was under it!!

Family Mosaic no longer exists and is not our Landlord/landowner.