CCJ - update, now set aside and currently creating defence for elderly family member

1505grandad

sunmoon789 said:

Yes I copied and pasted it and removed any dates and addresses 

Thankyou  -  as requested by other posters can you post a copy of the PoC from the claim form redacting the VRM only please.

sunmoon789

Hi - they never received a claim pack - I’ve looked through all the other letters and none of them mention a POC. On the witness statement at the end it says that the witness statement will act as their POC. The letters they have are NTK, letter before claim, internal enforcement letter, notice of impending court action 

1505grandad

Para 27  -  " The vehicle parked across two bays blocking access to the

nearby bay for other vehicles. The driver parked the Vehicle in clear contravention of the applicable terms and conditions and thus incurred a charge.

28. A PCN was not affixed to the Vehicle’s windscreen at the time of the contravention." 

Para 33  -  "The Claimant’s position is straightforward."

                   " The driver of the Vehicle parked in breach of those Terms and Conditions, thereby entering into the                               Contract which is now breached owing to a failure to make payment."

Coupon-mad

I think having sent a detailed (very pompously written!) WS that states it is intended to stand as the unserved POC (and this being a Small Claim where 'anything goes') even if the Judge didn't order that the WS should stand as the POC, Gladstone's have probably overcome the problem they had in the first (unseen) POC.

The Defendant's defence now, should address this allegation:

"parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions applicable at the Site in that the driver failed to park wholly within a marked bay. Exhibit reference xx. The vehicle parked across two bays blocking access to the nearby bay for other vehicles."

So what are the evidence photos like?

What does the photo of the sign look like?

Show us.

sunmoon789

Am I okay to post the pictures? The first picture is of the car from behind. It’s taken from another car. The car is slightly diagonal - honestly I’m not even 100% sure they are parked as opposed to reversing out. The second picture is a close up of the sign. I’ve checked out the street and sign on google maps - the sign is tiny and at the end of the road and honestly is kind of mis leading as it’s in front of a gated car park whilst the family member was parked in a bay along a strip of bays/properties.

Johnersh

Absolutely post pictures. Redact the numberplate if visible 

sunmoon789

The above two are the pictures they provided 

The above 3 are the view from google maps (same year)

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81307316/#Comment_81307316

No p&d so why is the following stated in their WS (as I pointed out in my above post):-

" Para 33  -  "The Claimant’s position is straightforward."

                   " The driver of the Vehicle parked in breach of those Terms and Conditions, thereby entering into the                               Contract which is now breached owing to a failure to make payment."

Just checking  -  CCJ is in favour of District Enforcement?

sunmoon789

1505grandad said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81307316/#Comment_81307316

No p&d so why is the following stated in their WS (as I pointed out in my above post):-

" Para 33  -  "The Claimant’s position is straightforward."

                   " The driver of the Vehicle parked in breach of those Terms and Conditions, thereby entering into the                               Contract which is now breached owing to a failure to make payment."

Just checking  -  CCJ is in favour of District Enforcement?

Yes - the CCJ was set aside about a week and a half ago. 

Johnersh

Can I just wryly observe that in order to take that photo, the parking operative had to have impermissibly parked in the roadway, obstructing any residential traffic (which cannot have been the intention of the landlord). Under the terms of their signage that makes them liable for a PCN there being no exemptions for drop off, delivery etc.

The parking operative may have even utilised a phone/camera whilst in charge of a motor vehicle on land abutting a public highway (a criminal offence - if the ignition was on). I doubt it's got legs, but an Ex Turpi pleading might be fun. 

In theory it is possible that the driver is still in the vehicle. We don't have a statement from the parking operative to confirm either way.

The fact that the parking operative hasn't stopped more than momentarily to snatch that photo might suggest that there has been no period of observation (? Is that a requirement).

Of course, since that looks like a car rather than a van, one might query whether this is a self ticket site?