It’s got to the court stage

Coupon-mad · 9 July 2018 at 11:54PM

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/cb58b497-f1eb-4a04-8ac1-463885e0395d

Wow, look at the note with the asterisk on page one; they admit they have WITHHELD evidence from the Defendant, under the hopeless excuse of data protection. That means in court you/the D can object to that piece of evidence when they try to foist it at you on the day, giving you no chance to examine and scrutinise the detail, dates/restrictions/exemption or to check out the authenticity of the signatories, etc.

So you can strongly suggest to the Judge on the day, that their failure to adhere to the CPR means that that withheld piece of evidence should not be allowed. Do not accept any paperwork foisted at the D on the day.

The WS is a mess! Just read through it, no page numbering, no paragraph numbering, random illogical things included (talking about parking enforcement being to deter criminal activity, LOL, and talking about 'permits' on the one hand, but 'keeping the roads clear' i.e. not offering a licence to park, on the other).

The debt collection fee of £60 is false, a lie. Put them to strict proof that they paid sixty quid a pop to a debt collector, per unpaid PCN, which they didn't because parking firms' debt collectors like Debt Recovery Plus, advertise on their website as a 'no-collection no fee' service.

beauty_in_colour · 10 July 2018 at 6:21AM

Thank you. I highlighted that paragraph concerning the withholding of the agreement for that very reason. I wrote to the estate management company requesting a copy of their agreement with the PMC and they basically fobbed me off with the same excuse.
On that matter, will it be a case of the judge adjourning the case on the day so I have time to study the agreement? Should I ask for an adjournment?

System · 10 July 2018 at 8:14AM

The other issue is who was actually driving on each of the occasions. There is no reference to POFA so it appears that NPM are making the assumption the defendant is the driver - but has produced no evidence of the same.

We'd need to see their paperwork (the charges) to see if they can invoke POFA but driver identity should be a line of defence, unless that was discarded earlier.

Was your communications with NPM included in the pack as if it wasn't then a lot of what has been said by them is challengeable.

The key point - and this is the one you need to get out of the traps first - is that the signs (their contract) can only have effect IF their letter of authorisation is a) valid , b) relates to the area parked on, c) allows action in their own name a d) is "legitimate".

NPM have messed up that last one where they say the £100 is for their company's legitimate interest rather than the clients' interest. You've said earlier, the client's interest was spelled out as being the removal of non-residents. So get that in front & centre too.

As well as the WS, send an extensive list of costs to NPM as it is clear they'll be in the frame for them. It needs to be with them a few days prior to the hearing.

beauty_in_colour · 10 July 2018 at 10:46AM

The other issue is who was actually driving on each of the occasions. There is no reference to POFA so it appears that NPM are making the assumption the defendant is the driver - but has produced no evidence of the same.

We'd need to see their paperwork (the charges) to see if they can invoke POFA but driver identity should be a line of defence, unless that was discarded earlier.

They are making assumptions but as mentioned my son had a small number of email correspondence with them directly and did not deny he was the driver and We did not want to lie about it.

Yes our communication is included in the pack theWas your communications with NPM included in the pack as if it wasn't then a lot of what has been said by them is challengeable.y submitted to the court.

The key point - and this is the one you need to get out of the traps first - is that the signs (their contract) can only have effect IF their letter of authorisation is a) valid , b) relates to the area parked on, c) allows action in their own name a d) is "legitimate".

I am unable to scrutinise this detail as they have made it quite clear that we will not be given a copy of their contract until the day of the hearing. They have included in the pack photos of their notices, their locations on the estate as well as an overview map of the area they were monitoring.

I also want to rely on the fact that the parking permit itself was unsafe and a security risk because it had our address on it ie house number as well as street name.

As well as the WS, send an extensive list of costs to NPM as it is clear they'll be in the frame for them. It needs to be with them a few days prior to the hearing.

Please help me understand what this means. An extensive lists of cost? What sort of cost for example?

Many thanks

Umkomaas · 10 July 2018 at 10:56AM

Please help me understand what this means. An extensive lists of cost? What sort of cost for example?

Have a look in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 where LoadsofChildren123 (a practising solicitor) has produced a model costs schedule. Use that as your starting point.

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 July 2018 at 12:23PM

Write to the Claimant now:

Dear Sirs

Please provide a full copy of the contract authorising you to operate on the relevant land on the relevant date.

Without this I cannot properly defend the claim because you have not proven that you have any authority to operate on the part of the land where the car was parked, or if you are what the terms of your authority are.

I note that you confirm your refusal to provide this document in the Witness Statement of X, citing that it is "commercially sensitive". It is not and it is absurd to claim otherwise. They are the precise terms under which you operate. I am entitled to see them, and to do so in advance of the final hearing. Antics like this have been tried before by private parking companies and I can find no other case where the withholding of core evidence has been allowed. This is a simple contract between you and the landowner (or the landowner's agent) which will tell me whether or not you are entitled to have issued a PCN, and whether or not you are entitled to bring and pursue these proceedings.

It is unacceptable to say you will produce this document to me only in court, and only on the day of the final hearing. Trial in this country is not by ambush and each party is obliged to furnish the other with all relevant information in advance. You have been ordered by the court to produce all evidence on which you rely and you are now in contempt of court by failing to do so.

I put you on notice that if you produce the contract on the day, I will invite the court to disregard it and to hold that you have not satisfied the burden of proof that you have any locus standi to have brought this claim. I will also ask for costs under CPR Part 27.14(2)(g) because you have clearly acted in a wholly unreasonable manner. The contract is a document which should have been provided at the pre-action phase, not on the day of the trial.

Yours faithfully
Son

beauty_in_colour · 10 July 2018 at 12:32PM

Write to the Claimant now:

Excellent!. I will write that letter today.

Kind regards

Coupon-mad · 11 July 2018 at 12:51AM

On that matter, will it be a case of the judge adjourning the case on the day so I have time to study the agreement? Should I ask for an adjournment?

No, you would object, NOT take the document foisted at you, and point out the Claimant is legally represented and has had ample time to furnish you with this information before court stage, and has unreasonably withheld it.

No adjournment.

You want that evidence struck out/disallowed, due to the C's failure to abide by the Practice Direction and trying to ambush you with it, and they cannot reasonably be allowed another try later, at more time/money cost to you to drop everything in life to attend a second hearing.

System · 11 July 2018 at 6:52AM

No, you would object, NOT take the document foisted at you, and point out the Claimant is legally represented and has had ample time to furnish you with this information before court stage, and has unreasonably withheld it.

The claimant's legal representative will have explained to the Claimant about withholding of evidence so the Defendant can only presume the Claimant is engages is wholly unreasonable and vexatious behaviour in this matter.

[Courts will always presume legal representatives are honest and upstanding. The inference is that if there is any double dealing it is the client at fault. So by the same inference, NPM are the ones, who after legal advice, are being duplicitous.

So instead of complaining about Gladstones - target the clients.]

beauty_in_colour · 11 July 2018 at 8:07AM

The claimants legal representative will have explained to the Claimant about withholding of evidence so the Defendant can only presume the Claimant is engages is wholly unreasonable and vexatious behaviour in this matter.

Somehow I dont get the impression that the claimant has used legal representatives. She appears to have written the witness statement herself. You might notice at the end of the claimants witness statement she says she passed the defendants details onto ZZPS her legal representatives. ZZPS are not a legal firm but a debt collection agency who buy debts off people.

Out of interest, can anyone tell me if I am within my rights to demand that the estate management company provide me with a copy of their contract with NPM? Seeing as they imposed this company on us in the first place. I wrote to them a few weeks ago but they wrote back and said it was confidential between them and their clients (ie the landowners). I thought I might try and get a copy of the agreement just to make sure it is the same as the one that NPM have (ie dates, signatures etc), when they eventually let me have a copy.

It’s got to the court stage

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free