Fighting parking fine, at stage, after the defence submitted

maxim024

Not sure why this last image didn't upload in previous post, but that's all of the document.

I think that they're panicking regarding my reference to Mazur Case,

However, if I understood the law correctly, the court has set the date for witness statement to be submitted in order to have - simultaneous exchange and just in rare cases they can approve a suplemental WS if any crucial new evidence has been brought to light.
What we have here is their try to take a second bite of an apple directly replying to my WS which has been sent for a simultaneous exchange, even stupidly confirming that they are doing so after receipt on 6th of October.

Stating that even if a director of a company would sign the WS would still be a hearsay evidence is legally nonsensical and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. 
A statement from a director of the company of their own business records is a direct evidence.

Coupon-mad

Yes that is a desperate attempt to rescue the first WS but the fact remains that the first WS was signed by a person who clearly averred under a statement of truth that THEY had 'conduct of the case under supervision' which Mazur expressly confirms is unlawful. Being a 25-year-qualified paralegal is not enough.

Could you show us your signage pictures?

I want to see if the added £70 is specified.

maxim024

Note the light dazzle from incoming cars, the entry signs placed on the opposite side of the road while being in shadow of separate lamp posts positioned far behind but directed straight int the drivers eyes.

maxim024

One photo failed to upload 

maxim024

this one, all up now.

Coupon-mad

The landowner authority doesn't state that there is an applicable condition to pay and display. Yet isn't that what Gladstones are accusing you of not doing?

maxim024

Great observation @Coupon-mad
I've missed that one initially, I have been focused on the fact the the land authority was issued for a different business entity from the one which made the contract with UKCPM.

I have check the entire lease agreement and there is Clause 10.1 which strictly limits the use for "education purposes" and in respect of the area edged blue on the Plan as 12 five a side football courts and generally for those purposes permitted by the Management Agreement and Community Use Agreement.
The lease does not contain any language authorizing the tenant to run a for-profit parking enforcement business or to charge visitors for parking. The focus of the agreement is on educational and community use.
So,..The chain of authority is not just broken, it may never have existed in the first place.

maxim024

Then, I will have this prepared if it comes to the actual hearing in less than two weeks from now.

The Council is the Landowner.
They set the master rules in the 2006 Lease.

The Lease Forbids This Activity.
The Lease restricts use to "educational purposes" and does not permit the tenant to run a commercial car park charging the public.

A Tenant Cannot Grant Rights it Doesn't Have. "Filton College Further Education Corporation" was never given the right to run a for-profit P&D scheme by the landowner. Therefore, it could not legally delegate this non-existent right to UK Car Park Management in 2017.

The Entire Scheme is Invalid.
The contract between UK Car Park Management and "South Gloucestershire & Stroud College" is therefore void from the outset, not only because it has the wrong name, but because it is based on the premise of a right that the tenant never possessed.

Coupon-mad

Yep have all that in your back pocket for the hearing but first after saying hello, raise a "preliminary matter" and ask the judge to dismiss the claim per Chan and Akande.

maxim024

I was just wondering,  how many people actually get to the point where they must attend the hearing? (in similar cases with Gladstone's \ UKPCM.)

Of course, just best to your knowledge, approx percentage?