DCB Legal Court Hearing 28th August

InconspicuousSheep21

I'll have a whizz through their WS and my Defence and WS, see what arguments I can make and then run them past yous on the forum. 

I honestly cannot thank you enough for the support, guidance and reassurance! I'd have been a headless chicken going about this case had I not decided to reach out on here!

InconspicuousSheep21

I'll also be ringing the firm back politely declining their assistance as I know the facts better than they, and so would be able (hopefully) to defend the claim in their absence!

Again, thank you guys!

Coupon-mad

That's better.

Confidence in your main point is key.

Even though this is a multiple PCN case I still wouldn't be surprised if DCB Legal discontinue it.  A phone call to the court the day before the hearing is worthwhile, to check the hearing remains listed.

InconspicuousSheep21

Regarding my main point, I'm just trying to gauge if C will object to the email provided in my WS as hearsay? Furthermore, do you know at all if I would be required to get the manager who wrote that email to submit a WS or submit a Witness Summary on their behalf, if so, by when?

TYIA

InconspicuousSheep21

There's been no mention of hearsay by C thus far, so I'm assuming they've taken that email correspondence into consideration. I don't know if the Court will take into consideration written correspondence from another person who isn't directly involved in the case. 

InconspicuousSheep21

Whilst drafting my arguments I noticed the JLL contract stated the term of the contract was from 13/10/2020 - 13/10/2023 (PCNs were issued June and July 2022). Me asking C why they didn't provide an updated contract as a result of the mutually agree'd extension between C and the Client would be irrelevant at this point since only I know that the contract between C and JLL was invalid at the time of the PCNs being issued as they were not their Client. The evidence to support this would not be in my original WS. Only got an hour to do something about this

InconspicuousSheep21

Is it worth including the whole JLL and C contract in a very brief WS so I can rely upon this evidence when I have my hearing?

InconspicuousSheep21

4. The Claimant asserts:

1. "My Company provides private car park management services to private landowners, managing how motorists are permitted to park on their land. My Company does so by issuing parking charge notices to any vehicle parked in a way the landowner does not permit."

1. "At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (‘Landowner’) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (‘Landowner Agreement’) is exhibited in 'EXHIBIT 1'."

1. "I confirm the term of the Landowner Agreement has been extended by mutual consent of the parties."

5. However, upon receiving a response from the actual Landowner at the time the PCNs were issued, it has come to light that the Claimant misrepresented the identity of the Landowner. The entity they referred to as the Landowner was, in fact, not managing the site during the relevant period.

6. JLL, the supposed Landowner, has confirmed, "JLL have not managed this site since 2021." (Exhibit XX10: Email Correspondence from JLL dated 13/08/2024).

7. This misrepresentation casts serious doubt on the Claimant’s authority to manage the Land or issue PCNs on behalf of the Landowner. This reinforces the defence that the Claimant lacked the legal right to pursue this claim.

8. Additionally, the Claimant has failed to produce a valid contract with the actual Landowner in their Witness Statement.

9. In light of this new evidence along with my Defence and Witness Statement, it is my respectful submission that the Claim is entirely without merit. As such it is requested the Claim is Struck Out and Judgement granted in my favour.

I have the above ready to file and serve if need be, can someone please advise on what I should do as I believe if I don't mention this now I will most definitely be unable to prove on the day of the hearing that the "Landowner" was in fact not the Landowner due to being unable to provide the email correspondence.

Gr1pr

Neither JLL or CBRE are likely to be the landowner, I don't believe that we have established who the actual landowner is 

On retail parks, managing agents are used to deal with the sites, including the parking contracts etc 

JLL and CBRE are possibly the managing agents. ?  Savills do a lot of these retail parks etc 

CBRE say this on their website 

CBRE is the global leader in commercial real estate services and investment.

Managing agent's work on behalf of absentee landowners, especially on retail parks, so check your facts please, no assumptions , because I believe that CBRE are managing agents on behalf of the landowner. The authority had to flow from landowner to managing agent to the parking company 

Lastly, earlier I mentioned promissory estoppel, did you look it up. ?

It pertains to the promises and statements that were made by employers and businesses, as people like coupon mad told you, you relied on those promises as an employee 

InconspicuousSheep21

CBRE confirmed to me yesterday that the Land is regulated by UKPC on their behalf yesterday and JLL state the Land was not managed by them.

I'm not entirely sure.

Do I just ignore their failure to provide a valid contract and pursue my defence on the grounds of promissory estoppel?