Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 7th Oct 17, 12:34 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 23Thanks
    geordiebill
    Update: Case won vs UKCPM!
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 17, 12:34 PM
    Update: Case won vs UKCPM! 7th Oct 17 at 12:34 PM
    Hello!

    I've just received the standard claim from Gladstone's for parking in a car park managed by UK CPM.

    The issue is about my workplace car park - a shared commercial car park - that is free to use for commercial tenants. The PCN was issued through the post on the basis of failure to display a permit. The T&Cs on the signs state that a permit is required, but the day-to-day reality is very different. Commercial tenants do not need to display a permit.

    I have an email from the building management company that was sent out to commercial tenants (including our facilities manager, who has passed it on to me) that explicitly puts this in writing: "I am pleased to inform you that the car park management company will no longer be policing the commercial bays and so any car that is parked in a commercial bay will not be ticketed". This means that there is a long-established understanding that I can enter the car park and use it without a permit - contrary to what is on the signs. As I've never been issued with a permit - and it's understood that I don't need one - it's actually impossible for me to enter into the contract they're offering! I pointed this out to UK CPM but of course they ignored it.

    On top of this, there are numerous problems with the signage. Among others, the sign at the sole entrance to the car park doesn't even belong to UK CPM, but the previous PPC! The UK CPM signs indicate they're members of the BPA but they weren't at the time, they were with IPC. And that's before we get onto the wording. All of this is documented with lots of of photographs of the site.

    Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.

    I have all documentation. Many thanks in advance.
    GB
    Last edited by geordiebill; 29-03-2018 at 7:42 PM.
Page 2
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 29th Mar 18, 8:14 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Well done Bill, and well done to all the forum members who helped. This is why we come here, to get a result like this.

    Thanks for letting us know.

    If you can spare the time would you be able to provide details of the case, especially what the judge aid, as this will be really helpful The Parking-Prankster woud I'm sure be ibterested in this as well.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Thank you! I'm absolutely delighted. It's Dan in real life. Bill was just a temporary nom de plume. Happy to share the details. I've taken your advice and emailed PP.

    Which claim number?

    Did you bump into anyone there who was watching/on your side?

    Well done!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes, I bumped into a friendly face who was there for the day! Was it you that I met?

    Claim number: D0GF19EK

    Based upon the advice I received above, I threw everything at them. I hope that was why they didn't send anyone today. In his judgement, the judge agreed with every point I managed to get across. We didn't even get into any case law as I suspect he'd heard enough.

    The main thrust of it was:
    • the Particulars of Claim had the wrong date (and the judge said he could have struck out the claim on this basis alone);
    • there were clear untruths in the witness statement of the Claimant (e.g. they stated the Parking Charge number was in the Particulars - it wasn't);
    • I was authorised and permitted to park at all times (apart from being an employee with an issued key fob to open the gate, I pointed out that I was authorised to park when measured against UKCPM's own definition of "unauthorised parking" on its own website);
    • the terms on the signs said a fee was only payable if you parked without permission (I had permission);
    • the BPA AOS logo on the signs (which they've had two-and-a-half years to amend) was misleading to drivers as their rights were altered after the conclusion of any parking contract;
    • there were signs from two other operators in the car park;
    • the signs didn't meet the IPC Code of Practice;
    • the agreement between UKCPM and the residential management company had been signed as the freeholder when Land Registry documents showed they were in fact a leaseholder (so no landowner authority);
    • no authority had been either sought nor granted for them to offer parking contracts ("relevant contracts" as per POFA and the IPC CoP);
    • the residential management company had confirmed in writing to me that they, not UKCPM, were in fact managing the land.
    There was quite a lot!

    I had issued a full rebuttal to their Witness Statement in my own. Thankfully, theirs arrived in enough time to give me the chance to do that. In it, I had also countered all the case law (Beavis, Vine v Waltham Forest, VCS v HMRC, ParkingEye v Somerfield) but none of it came up at the hearing. I had also provided evidence of the relationship between the IPC and Gladstones (Companies House docs and the discussion in Parliament) and the evident conflict of interests, but we didn't get to that.

    In the run-up, Gladstones claimed I had not sent them my documents in time, yet they mysteriously turned up minutes after I emailed them the Royal Mail tracking details, evidence of signature and confirmation of delivery at their office.
    Last edited by geordiebill; 29-03-2018 at 8:37 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Mar 18, 8:19 PM
    • 20,529 Posts
    • 32,445 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Yes, I bumped into a friendly face who was there for the day! Was it you that I met?
    Let's help you narrow this down. Male or female?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 29th Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Let's help you narrow this down. Male or female?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Mar 18, 8:30 PM
    • 20,529 Posts
    • 32,445 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.
    Originally posted by geordiebill
    Male? Not Coupon-mad.

    Ian? Ian Lamoureux aka 'Lamilad' who put Excel Parking to the sword on three occasions. Do read two of the transcripts of his court wins against them, here:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 29th Mar 18, 8:45 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Male? Not Coupon-mad.

    Ian? Ian Lamoureux aka 'Lamilad' who put Excel Parking to the sword on three occasions. Do read two of the transcripts of his court wins against them, here:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    It very well may have been, especially as he's just up the road, but I sincerely can't remember. Whoever it was, I hope he sees this as it was great to know there was somebody there in my corner and I'm grateful.

    Those cases of Lamilad's are great!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 30th Mar 18, 6:13 AM
    • 3,783 Posts
    • 6,224 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    UKCPM didn't attend the hearing.
    Seems to be the new approach. Why pay Elms for someone who is clueless when the Witness Statement can do the job for you.

    Especially true if the WS has "mistakes" and the OP can't pick them up. OP's also forget to ask for costs so it's win-win for the PPC.

    Just a heads-up for those who don't see the value of help here.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Mar 18, 9:10 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,459 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I will let the person who it was, confirm if they want to. I do know who went there.

    Wasn't me, I'm female and in Sussex!

    Just a heads-up for those who don't see the value of help here.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Help from bargepole, you or Lamilad is very valuable and I have never said otherwise. People need to be aware that I never said 'no lay reps' per se. Most here know what I said, and I was right.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 30-03-2018 at 9:45 PM.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 30th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 2,822 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Male! With all the adrenaline and so on, I forgot the gent's name. My brain is saying Ian, but I'm not 100%.
    It was nice to meet you.

    Really pleased you won. You did what we encourage everyone to do which was to read and discern the relevant information in the NEWBIES thread, ask questions on your thread, and follow the advice given.

    As such, you arrived at court well prepared with very well written documents and substantial evidence to support your case.

    The outcome was never really in any doubt but you presented your case very well, nonetheless.

    I was surprised the judge didn't give more consideration to your request for unreasonable behaviour costs, given the utterly baseless and unmeritorious nature of the claim.... That said, we rarely see these additional costs awarded.

    I hope your colleague is encouraged and empowered by your success.

    Well done!
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 6th Apr 18, 12:34 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    geordiebill
    Wasn't me, I'm female and in Sussex!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes that definitely wasn't you! Ha!

    It was nice to meet you.

    Really pleased you won. You did what we encourage everyone to do which was to read and discern the relevant information in the NEWBIES thread, ask questions on your thread, and follow the advice given.

    As such, you arrived at court well prepared with very well written documents and substantial evidence to support your case.

    The outcome was never really in any doubt but you presented your case very well, nonetheless.

    I was surprised the judge didn't give more consideration to your request for unreasonable behaviour costs, given the utterly baseless and unmeritorious nature of the claim.... That said, we rarely see these additional costs awarded.

    I hope your colleague is encouraged and empowered by your success.

    Well done!
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Thank you again. I was hopeful of a positive outcome, given the amount of evidence I'd provided the court, along with the fact they didn't turn up, but it was a real boost to know I wasn't going in alone.

    Re the unreasonable behaviour costs. I did enjoy seeing the judge break out into a smile that said he appreciated the brass neck of it. Don't ask, don't get!

    Re my colleague (he's facing a total of 6 cases against these lot for the same car park and has won one to date). They've just notified him they're not turning up to his next case next week. We've shared documentation and we have a 100% record against them so far, so maybe they've seen enough. I certainly think he's got a case for unreasonable behaviour if they pursue all six to court!

    Alas, we're now having to help yet another colleague who is currently doing the letters dance with them. The Residential Management Company, who actually run the car park (it isn't UKCPM) have a lot to answer for.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Apr 18, 2:31 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,459 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    (he's facing a total of 6 cases against these lot for the same car park and has won one to date).
    He needs to tell the Judge this, at the second hearing, and tell the Judge that he has already won a case on the same facts, so these other hearings are a complete waste of time & money and wholly unreasonable.

    The doctrine of res judicata applies, and the party that is legally represented in the claim (i.e. the one using Gladstones) knows this and should have paid regard to their first duty, which is to the Court.

    He should file a substantial costs schedule in advance, a few days before, like this one:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002886754-Successful-Costs-Application

    Like you say: Don't ask, don't get!
    • geordiebill
    • By geordiebill 14th Apr 18, 1:06 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    geordiebill
    He needs to tell the Judge this, at the second hearing, and tell the Judge that he has already won a case on the same facts, so these other hearings are a complete waste of time & money and wholly unreasonable.

    The doctrine of res judicata applies, and the party that is legally represented in the claim (i.e. the one using Gladstones) knows this and should have paid regard to their first duty, which is to the Court.

    He should file a substantial costs schedule in advance, a few days before, like this one:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002886754-Successful-Costs-Application

    Like you say: Don't ask, don't get!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    He raised res judicata but it wasn't applied due to a technicality. The judge recognised the point, but the first case was for failure to display a permit and the second for unauthorised parking (or vice versa), so there was a slight variation.

    The good news, however, is that the claim was quickly dismissed as they hadn't complied with the CPR requirements on notifying my colleague that they weren't attending. They'd only given six days' notice and not the required seven! They also hadn't bothered to lodge their documents with the court.

    On to the next one!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,755Posts Today

7,099Users online

Martin's Twitter