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
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 10th Oct 17, 5:52 PM
    • 109Posts
    • 104Thanks
    muleskinner
    WON! - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 17, 5:52 PM
    WON! - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd 10th Oct 17 at 5:52 PM
    UPDATE 12.12.17

    Court hearing set for 12th Feb. WS needs to be in by 2nd Jan (great timing) so I've started working on it now.

    I've posted my fifth (and hopefully final) draft WS at the end of this thread and would be really grateful for any input. Thanks again for input thus far.

    Thanks in advance.

    ===

    Hi,

    So, it looks like I'm finally going to court to fight a PCN issued by Parking & Property Management Ltd. PCN issued to my wife so I'm basically fighting this on her behalf.

    PCN was issued for five minutes parking in a lay-by opposite a co-op where it had previously been permissible to park for a limited time (20 mins or so) if visiting same. Very poor forbidding signage and absolutely nothing to indicate change of restrictions.

    I've just received the DQ from Northampton as well as an email from Gladstones saying they are applying for 'Special Directions' to have it adjudicated 'papers only'. I know how to fill in the DQ but I couldn't find anything indicating how to respond to these 'Special Directions' - do I just write a covering letter saying I do not consent to this and want an oral hearing?

    Also I will want to attend court as my wife's 'lay representative' and I can't find any info on this anywhere. Do I need to make any kind of special application to do this?

    It seems the next step will be for me to write a witness statement and get evidence together. I would welcome any feedback/advice on this specific to my case. The defence I filed (prepared after much research here and elsewhere) is below.

    The 'particulars of claim' state:

    'The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Kingston Mills Bradford-on-Avon. The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle and the claimant claims £160 for parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest etc etc'

    I don't have any legal training but have been through the small claims process a few times before, winning two out of three of them!

    =====

    Summary of Defence

    I am XXX of 44 XXX, Defendant in this matter.

    On the 7th January 2017 I parked my car in a unmarked lay-by outside the co-op in Bradford-on-Avon for the purposes of buying groceries from the co-op and delivering a package to the Post Office there. Previous parking restrictions in this spot had always allowed short parking stays on co-op business.

    After less than five minutes inside the shop I noticed one of the Claimant’s operatives approach my vehicle. As it appeared he was about to issue a parking ticket I left the shop immediately and returned to my vehicle.

    I explained that I was unaware of any changes to parking restrictions and would remove my vehicle immediately. Despite this, and whilst in my presence, the Claimant’s operative took photographs of my vehicle and issued me with the Parking Control Notice (PCN) that is the subject of this claim.

    The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which fully negates the Claimant’s case.

    1. A Contract Cannot Exist For Something That Is Forbidden
    The wording on the sign in question expressly forbids parking, therefore it cannot be considered an offer of parking on any terms. Consequently there is no contract and no ‘breach of terms’.

    2. The Signage Is Not of a Standard To Constitue A Contract
    The signage at the site was not of a standard to constitute a ‘contract’ between myself and the claimant. Without a contract there cannot be a ‘breach of terms’.

    3. Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 and ‘Right Of Cancellation’ Applies
    If it was assumed a contract did exist it would be categorised as a ‘distance contract’ under Consumer Contracts Regulations. As such I would have had ‘right of cancellation’ from said contract.

    4. The Claimant Has No Standing to Bring a Case
    Despite being asked, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have any authority to collect parking charges on the land in question.

    Particulars of Defence

    1. A Contract Cannot Exist For Something That Is Forbidden
    The wording on the sign in question forbids parking other than for disabled blue badge holders and co-op delivery vehicles. There is no meaningful ‘offer’ of parking for other vehicles and the original PCN and Notice To Keeper I was served with refer to the charge in question as being for ‘unauthorised parking’. Without an ‘offer’ or benefit to the consumer there cannot be a contract and simply being told not to do something does not constitue a contract.

    If the charge of £100 for 24 hours was a genuine ‘offer’ then I fail to see how my parking was ‘unauthorized’ (therefore invalidating the original PCN and Notice To Keeper’ I was sent) or how I have commited any ‘breach’ as stated on the particulars of claim. The Claimant’s position on this seems hopelessly muddled.

    There have been at least two other cases where it has been ruled that such ‘forbidding contracts’ cannot be enforced. For examples see ‘Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford’ (which refers to signage and wording almost identical to that used in this case) and in which the Judge found as follows:

    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

    The only difference with the signage in the above case and this particular case is that here certain vehicles (co-op delivery vehicles and disabled blue badge holders) are permitted to park. However, in ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ and ‘ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester’ it was ruled that any contractual arrangement implied by such signage only applies to vehicles which are ‘authorised’ to park. From ‘ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester’:

    ‘I do not find that “Terms of parking apply at all times” in any way invalidates my interpretation of the sign [that it is forbidding] because there are terms which apply to those that are authorised to park.’

    According to the claimant my vehicle was not ‘authorised’ to park as stated in the PCN and Notice To Keeper.

    Note also that in both these cases it was ruled that ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ did not apply as in that case there was an ‘offer’ of free parking for a limited period of time. From ‘Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford’:

    ‘In the Beavis case the scheme was categorised by the permission the ParkingEye gave Mr Beavis to be in the car park for a limited period of time. So whether you call it a contractual licence or whether you simply call it a contractual permission, as Lord Mance in the end did, that was the consideration and the consideration flowing the other way was Mr Beavis’s agreement to be bound by those terms.’

    2. The Signage Is Not of a Standard To Constitute A Contract
    The signage at the site was not of a standard to constitute a ‘contract’ between myself and the claimant. Without a contract there cannot be a ‘breach of terms’.

    Specifically, the signage at the site falls way short of the characteristics defined in the code of practice of the International Parking Community (IPC) (the industry body to which the Claimant subscribes) in the following ways:

    i) There are no signs at the entrance to the bay indicating one is entering private land

    ii) The bay is unmarked and undifferentiated from the public highway

    iii) The only PPM sign that is in place does not contain a large ‘P’ indicating parking restrictions

    iv) The sign is not in a position’ such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see it clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site’.

    v) The sign is not ‘obvious to the motorist’ as it is a small sign containing small text on a post over seven feet high.

    vi) The IPC guidelines explicitly state that ‘Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.’ There was a recent change in restrictions here yet there were, and have never been, any such signs at the site.

    In addition to the above it should be noted that there is additional co-op branded signage at the site that does not mention any kind of charge for parking, this signage is considerably larger and more apparent than the PPM signage that is the subject of this claim.

    3. Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 and ‘Right Of Cancellation’ Applies
    If , despite the above, it was deemed that a valid contract did exist it would be categorised as a ‘distance contract’ under Consumer Contracts Regulations. A ‘distance contract’ is defined as

    ‘a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded’

    This would clearly be defined as an organised service-provision scheme (for parking), the contract is concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer and there is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

    As such I would have had ‘right of cancellation’ from such a contract and my communicating to the PPM operative that I was not aware of this supposed ‘contractual arrangement’, followed by the immediate removal of my vehicle, should have been taken as a clear indication that I wanted to excersise this right. As this was done within five minutes of the contracts (supposed) acceptance this falls well within the guidelines set out in part 3 of The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

    In any case it is perfectly reasonable to expect 5-10 minutes to understand and comprehend any potential contract. ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ makes it clear that if a charge is not to be a penalty/unfair consumer charge, the driver must have ample time to be able to read and digest the contractual terms so that they can fairly agree to the terms

    Not also that the signage does not contain the information required by the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. As per clause 13(1), without this information any contract is not binding on the consumer.


    4. The Claimant Has No Standing to Bring a Case
    Despite being asked, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have any authority to collect parking charges on the land in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to on what terms they are permitted to operate by the landowner by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contract.

    5. Additional Costs
    There is no justification in the particulars of claim for the £60 of ‘damages and indemnity costs’, nor for the £50 ‘legal representatives costs’. Any communication I have received from the Claimant’s legal representatives has consisted of automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the validity of these costs.
    Last edited by muleskinner; 12-02-2018 at 5:32 PM. Reason: Update
Page 6
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Practice Direction 27, which supplements Rule 27 which applies exclusively to small claims track cases:


    Representation at a hearing

    3.1 In this paragraph:
    (1) a lawyer means a barrister, a solicitor or a legal executive employed by a solicitor, and
    (2) a lay representative means any other person.
    3.2
    (1) A party may present his own case at a hearing or a lawyer or lay representative may present it for him.
    (2) The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 provides that a lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:!!!8211;
    (a) where his client does not attend the hearing;
    (b) at any stage after judgment; or
    (c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings.
    (3) However the court, exercising its general discretion to hear anybody, may hear a lay representative even in circumstances excluded by the Order.
    (4) Any of its officers or employees may represent a corporate party.


    In other cases yes, it's subject to the court's discretion, but this gives you an absolute right.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 9:36 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 9:39 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    It's in the Lay Rep Order as well

    3. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), any person may exercise rights of audience in proceedings dealt with as a small claim in accordance with the rules of court








    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 9:44 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Aye, yes - that's in there as well.

    I guess I should also include payslips/invoices for proof of income?

    I haven't done this but am I allowed to ask for costs to cover my time as lay rep or will it only cover Defendant's time?
    Originally posted by muleskinner


    Rule 27.14 (4)
    The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901 (a lay representative).


    So to recover costs for your own time, you'd have to be charging a fee.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 12th Feb 18, 9:45 AM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    OK, thanks very much LoC. That has me feeling rather more relaxed. I had already printed out the lay rep order and will print out the entire PD should there be an issue.

    On the court service website it says Judges discretion and I think another user (Kamril?) was told Judge's discretion the other day, this is why I thought that was the case.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 11:39 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The judge was wrong in that other case.
    Believe it or not, many of them don't know the law properly and so you have to be ready to show them that they are.


    I wouldn't be too worried though, even if they think they have to give permission they are likely to do so in a small claim with a nervous litigant in person.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 11:47 AM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    If the judge gets it wrong, and you have to ask for permission, judicial guidance about litigants in person is in this document.


    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/judicial-college/ETBB_LiP+_finalised_.pdf


    Look at para 21:


    21) Examples of the type of special circumstances which have been held to justify the grant of a right of audience to a lay person, including a MF, are: i) that person is a close relative of the litigant; ii) health problems preclude the litigant from addressing the court, or conducting litigation, and the litigant cannot afford to pay for a qualified legal representative; iii) the litigant is relatively inarticulate and prompting by that person may unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.


    Para 33 is also helpful


    para 67 is unequivocal
    Small Claims


    67. Under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 the Lord Chancellor authorised
    The Lay Representatives [Rights of Audience] Order 1999.19 This is also set out in CPR 27 PD
    3.2 (2). This Order survives the 2007 Act coming into force. It authorises lay representatives to appear in small claims. It provides that a lay representative may not exercise any right of audience (1).where the party fails to attend the hearing, (2) at any stage after judgment, or(3) on any appeal. The court has discretion to hear a lay representative even in any of these circumstances but granting a right to appear in an excluded case would require reasons. A lay representative exercising
    this right may be restricted if unruly, misleads the court or
    demonstrates unsuitability.


    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Feb 18, 2:08 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,295 Thanks
    pappa golf
    update? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 12th Feb 18, 5:26 PM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    F--k me that was much harder work than I thought it was going to be! Almost 2 full hours.

    Won. Basic Costs awarded. Unreasonable costs application denied (thought that was a long shot).

    Thank you to everyone who has helped me out here long the way, particularly those of you that are legally qualified. Your support and contribution here is very much appreciated.

    So, full report follows...

    Before Deputy District Judge Sarah Smith at Chippenham & Trowbridge County Court.

    No issues whatsoever with me acting as lay rep on behalf of the wife.

    A David Blake from PPM turned up in person to represent them - I thought he may do given the proximity of the court to where they are based (Bracknell). I strongly suspect this is the same David Blake discussed here but that's another story. He was pretty incompetent on the whole, turned up in his Jag with minutes to spare. Scamming must be going well.

    Judge was stern but fair on the whole. In general everyone was given a good chance to speak and I felt everything I said was being considered properly. There were points I felt I was cut a bit short but, given the fact the hearing lasted almost 2 hours, I can hardly blame her for this.

    She did NOT like being quoted case law without context and, generally, I don't think she really liked being quoted case law by individuals with no legal training at all.

    Rather than let one side speak, then the other, as I've been accustomed to in these situations. She asked me to list the key points of my defence and then said we would address each individually. I'd already broken things down as follows.

    1. If 'consideration for parking service' no parking services were received.
    2. Signage was inadequate.
    3. No landowner authority.
    4. Forbidding signage.

    I listed these points very briefly, she said 'fair enough' and asked PPM to respond to each individually. For some reason PPM jumped straight to point 2...

    Signage
    This did not go well. I explained that the driver never saw the signs and attempted to back this up with Vine vs Waltham. I showed a photo of the sign 3ft above the driver's head, small text, no sign at entrance to bay, bay looks like public highway, change in restrictions, the whole shebang. Pointed out the many parallels with V vs W.

    Judge ruled against me on this point. Said change in restrictions was irrelevant, as a motorist you have to be aware of such things all the time (used the example of a 40 limit changing to a 30). Did not agree on my interpretation of V vs W, basically said (after prompting from PPM) that the reason she didn't see the signs was that she was ill.

    In retrospect I think I got too bogged down in V vs W at this point, missed the opportunity to explain how the signs didn't adhere to IPC CoP, but it was really her decision that the change in restrictions wasn't relevant that did it for me here.

    Landowner Authority
    This is what won it and where David Blake demonstrated remarkable incompetence. They had included, in their WS, documentation that showed completely without doubt that the 'site' on which they were contracted to operate started beyond the point driver was issued the PCN. Blake was like a headless chicken when confronted with this and when pressed by the Judge even said 'That's an internal document, it shouldn't have been in there'!

    Judge completely ignored quotes from VCS vs HMRC in his WS, Blake had already made a big deal about he was operating within limits set out by the landowner so he shot himself in the foot there.

    I also presented photographs of council signage now at the site. I offered no explanation for this but simply said it made it look very much like PPM were never supposed to be there in the first place. Blake obviously had no idea how to respond to this and got himself in a right flap, even saying at one point that the land was owned by the co-op which contradicted what was on his contracts. Judge did not look kindly on this.

    In the end Judge ruled in my favour on this point, considered contracts didn't cover the land in question and signage was put up in error. Consequently she gave no ruling on the following point, though it was discussed at length...

    Forbidding Contract / Consideration For Parking
    I explained that PPM had not made their position on this clear, that the charge had to be either for contractual breach or a consideration for parkings services. If it was for contractual breach then it was a forbidding contract as the act of entering into the contract would have been the breach. If consideration for parking then no parking services were received as driver was told to remove their vehicle immediately by the 'warden'. I backed this up by all the references to 'unauthorised parking' on the correspondence.

    Judge seemed to totally get this and pressed Blake on it. Blake was quite unbelievably clueless on this point and even said at one stage 'I don't understand the terminology' or something to that effect. His only defence was really 'This is how it's done everywhere' and 'If you can't do it like this how can you enforce 'no parking''.

    The Judge seemed to take his points on board but I suspect she may have ruled in my favour on this issue, it's hard to say though. 70/30!

    Costs for 'unreasonable behaviour' not awarded as Judge thought behaviour needed to be extreme to warrant this. She did listen to my application, cut me a bit short but time was dragging on. Kept mentioning the fact that they'd adhered to deadlines.

    On the way out Blake asked me if I was a lawyer (I make videogames for a living!) and also said to me 'Don't take it personally, it's just business' to which I responded 'It's not business for everyone at the receiving end of it is it?'. He made a fairly swift exit at this point. Bottom-feeding scumbag.

    So, a victory, though a somewhat pyrrhic one. What struck me about this whole experience is how utterly, utterly rotten this entire industry is. His 'business' basically involves bullying people for money, how he sleeps at night I don't know. My wife wouldn't have been able to defend herself without my help and neither, I'm sure, could many of the hapless folk he's preyed on in his time.

    And.. if they were only on this land by 'mistake' what about all the other people they've 'accidentally' profited from? maybe I should report them to the police for fraud?
    Last edited by muleskinner; 12-02-2018 at 5:30 PM.
    • abeltasman
    • By abeltasman 12th Feb 18, 6:26 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    abeltasman
    Thanks for that really helpful breakdown. It sounds really intense!

    I have exactly the same defence as you (minus the contracts not covering the land in question).

    Interesting that the judge didn't like the signage argument. Would you suggest I keep linking it back to the IPC CoP when the time comes?

    As for the case law comment at the top, that's a bit worrying! Did she take the time to look through any of the transcripts your provided?
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 12th Feb 18, 7:54 PM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    Interesting that the judge didn't like the signage argument. Would you suggest I keep linking it back to the IPC CoP when the time comes?
    Originally posted by abeltasman
    I think I would certainly explain my point of view in layman's terms (including obvious CoP violations) before backing it up with case law.

    The problem with the signage argument in my case was that, to be fair, the sign was placed in the position you'd expect it to be if it were a council-run bay. Rightly or wrongly the Judge wasn't bothered about the size of the text, or whether it could be viewed whilst parking, it was simply that that's where you should expect the sign to be and, given it was there, you should have read it. Not being aware of it because you were accustomed to restrictions being different was not an excuse as these things change all the time.

    As for the case law comment at the top, that's a bit worrying! Did she take the time to look through any of the transcripts your provided?
    I don't know is the honest answer. The only time she really got a bit tetchy though was over being quoted case law out-of-context (probably by people she didn't think really understood it anyway and she could have had a point).

    I had taken pains to make sure I hadn't presented things out of context. I'd included two entire Judge's statements from Vine vs Waltham and any other case law was all presented with surrounding paragraphs. I told the Judge I had the entire V vs W transcript with me if she wanted to read the whole thing.

    Vine vs Waltham just wasn't the silver bullet I thought it might be and I didn't want to push things as I could tell the Judge had had enough and I wasn't so sure of my footing either.

    I should note that the quote the Gladstones/PPCs use from Vine vs Waltham is almost obscenely out of context as it presents the Judge explaining the respondent's case as if it were the Judge's opinion. Again, I didn't want to get into this for fear of digging myself a hole.

    Another thing I should add is that she wasn't the slightest bit interested in other County Court judgements, PCM vs Bull etc. She pretty much dismissed these out of hand - 'other judgements in other County Courts have no bearing on this one' type of thing.

    It's pot luck to a large extent though. I've read of Judges who have gone off, read the V vs W transcript and come back and declared the case for the motorist straight away. I guess the advice is - don't rely too much on one thing and if things don't seem to be going your way move on quickly, if they are going your way go for the jugular which is what I did on the whole landowner authority thing.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Feb 18, 8:07 PM
    • 2,253 Posts
    • 3,996 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    if they are going your way go for the jugular which is what I did on the whole landowner authority thing.
    They would too, if it was going their way. Courts are based on the adversarial principle so no need to be nice.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Feb 18, 8:44 PM
    • 7,161 Posts
    • 9,473 Thanks
    beamerguy
    muleskinner

    Very well done

    2 hours is a long ordeal and maybe suggests the judge
    was not up to speed as to this, this seems like wasting
    the courts time over such a trivial matter.

    Gladstones scuppered again and the hired mouth Blake
    did them no favours which seems par for the course.

    PPM .... YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Feb 18, 9:06 PM
    • 56,149 Posts
    • 69,813 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Brilliant stuff!

    Just to pull from your OP the situation for others to see in context what the case was about, because not all of us view this forum in the blue & red garish way that repeats the first post at the top of every page (I certainly don't view the forum that way, nor do several regulars!):

    a PCN issued by Parking & Property Management Ltd. PCN issued to my wife so I'm basically fighting this on her behalf.

    PCN was issued for five minutes parking in a lay-by opposite a co-op where it had previously been permissible to park for a limited time (20 mins or so) if visiting same. Very poor forbidding signage and absolutely nothing to indicate change of restrictions.
    So, is it now time for the registered keeper to report PPM to the IPC and to the DVLA, for ticketing on Council land? This is a case where a court Judge has has held as fact, and their own evidence and the new Council signs all prove, that this PCN was given on land where a Council Traffic order applies.

    That's illegal. Go for the jugular with complaints. The IPC will only care, if the DVLA are also copied in. And your MP as well, why not, just for the added oomph?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-02-2018 at 10:36 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Feb 18, 11:43 PM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Very well done muleskinner, all the hard work was worth it!
    You are right on how you play it in court. You run your point and if you can see the judge isnt with you, dont be phased and move on to the next one.
    Not all judges will be so dismissive of county court case law. Those cases are persuasive rather than the decisions of higher courts which are binding. But other judges will respect the decisions taken by their brethren.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • abeltasman
    • By abeltasman 13th Feb 18, 12:18 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    abeltasman
    Thanks Muleskinner. And well done for the win!
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 13th Feb 18, 8:41 AM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    muleskinner

    Very well done

    2 hours is a long ordeal and maybe suggests the judge
    was not up to speed as to this, this seems like wasting
    the courts time over such a trivial matter.

    Gladstones scuppered again and the hired mouth Blake
    did them no favours which seems par for the course.

    PPM .... YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Thanks Beamerguy, I know how you hate the Glastards but this one really wasn't down to them (though it was their templated WS). PPM represented themselves. The somewhat shady David Blake is a senior employee there, he has introduced himself as a Director of the company in other case but he's not listed at Companies House.

    I think the length of time of the hearing wasn't due to the judge not being 'up to speed', but simply each party being given time to say their piece.

    I guess she could have canned it at the 'landowner authority' stage and left it at that but I was glad to be able to argue the 'forbidding contract' point and see her (and PPMs) response, disappointed not to hear her ruling on it though. She copped out a little there.
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 13th Feb 18, 8:57 AM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    Brilliant stuff!
    So, is it now time for the registered keeper to report PPM to the IPC and to the DVLA, for ticketing on Council land? This is a case where a court Judge has has held as fact, and their own evidence and the new Council signs all prove, that this PCN was given on land where a Council Traffic order applies.

    That's illegal. Go for the jugular with complaints. The IPC will only care, if the DVLA are also copied in. And your MP as well, why not, just for the added oomph?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi CM - I am all for going gung-ho on these scumbags but unfortunately things aren't as 'cut and dried' as you suggest.

    There was no TRO in place at the time the ticket was issued, it was put in place almost 12 months later. I have that from the Council. This is why I never argued that point in Court but simply included the photo, almost without comment, to demonstrate the complexity of jurisdiction at that site and how important it was for PPM to have their ducks in a row when it came to demonstrating landowner authority. From that point of view it certainly worked!

    I am still unsure whether they did have landowner authority over that particular bay and certainly nothing they presented indicated they did. He demonstrated incompetence in court, total ignorance of key issues, and his general flapping about managed to persuade the judge PPM were the type of company who might put a sign up somewhere in error. I suspect the documents that really did it for them though were internal documents handed out to their operatives rather than part of their contract with the landowner.

    Do you think it's enough to write to the parties you suggest with the 'evidence' PPM provided and simply say I strongly suspect this company has been ticketing illegally in this bay for approx twelve months, judge agrees, here's the evidence - go investigate...?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Feb 18, 9:10 AM
    • 2,250 Posts
    • 2,653 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    It still shows it was Council land - they couldnt put a TRO in place otherwise!
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 13th Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    • 109 Posts
    • 104 Thanks
    muleskinner
    It still shows it was Council land - they couldnt put a TRO in place otherwise!
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I think the bays in question have been adopted by the council when the TRO was put in place, they weren't adopted by the council at the time the ticket was issued.

    Like I said , the provenance of this site is really complicated. It's private land according to the land registry and according to the council (i've checked with several departments), yet it still has a council TRO in place since December (across all the bays on the site actually, not just this one).

    The roadways are public highway (anyone has free right of passage) yet they are not 'adopted highway' - however they are on a list to be 'adopted highway' at some point in the future.

    There are what appear to be two different freeholders, Linden Homes and Pentland Management. Both appear to have jurisdiction over different areas of the site. Figuring out who has jurisdiction over which bit is more or less impossible.

    There are also all sort of historical covenants in place, plus it's a conservation area etc etc.

    Like I said - extremely complicated!
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

1,625Posts Today

8,751Users online

Martin's Twitter