tissot
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by tissot
-
Just recieved a CPR 27.9 'our client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing' from Gladstones. Does that mean just the PPC won't be attending or Gladdys themselves ? Regards tissot
-
Unfortunately lease on land registry does not include anything about spaces however the LL states it is in theirs ! I think the spaces were added on afterwards.
-
I can try but they were quite adamant they didn't want to. I just want to know if the argument that, they should prove to me that the lease has been amended to allow them to issue charges in their own name and not me have to prove they cant? Regards, tissot
-
These two pieces of case law are already included in my WS that I sent but appreciate the help regardless Regards tissot
-
I submitted my WS and I then received a supplementary WS trying to disprove the points in my WS. Can anyone shed any light on this one? The case they refer to states the claimant didn't have any mention of a parking space in his tenancy agreement however I do. The only thing I don't have is the Lease as the LL isn't comfortable with giving me a copy. Kind Regards, Tissot CLAIMANT SUPP WS REDACTED.pdf
-
Hey EB, I found this, PACE v Lengyel C7GF6E3R http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 Specifically Para 9 shows some similarities to the contract produced to me. What do you think ? Regards, tissot
-
This is my WS so far, I am really out of my depth here so am going through other WS and looking up cases for reference that have been used before that may apply to my case. I thought it best to submit as it is so far so I dont go down a path thats ultimately going to end badly! PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (CLAIMANT) -AND- XXXXXXXXXXXX (DEFENDANT) WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXXX I, XXXXXXXXXXXX WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before. 1. The defendant has supremacy of contract as the legal tenant of the property which includes the use of the parking space in question. 2. Parking and Property Management are uninterested third parties as they do not have a contract with the Freeholder or Leaseholder. 3. The only contract that exists is that between Parking and Property Management and the Estate Management company who have not shown authority to offer such contracts. 4. If such a contract existed that would require a change in the lease conditions and the Leaseholder has not received as such. 5. As per the claimants implied contract on their signage, there is no bare license to allow anyone to park, their signage and the permit scheme is prohibitive. 6. There is no genuine offer of terms to park, the signage is prohibitive in nature so there cannot be that meeting of minds to agree terms. 7. A contract can not be formed by agreeing that the only way of completing it is to break it. That makes the charge an unlawful penalty and thus unenforceable. 8. Parking Eye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. 9. Parking Eye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. 10. I also refer the court to Parking Eye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined Parking Eye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that Parking Eye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant. 11. The claimant failed to send the defendant the ‘particulars of claim’ during this claim process. Meaning a full defence can not be submitted due to little information provided about the claim. Now I understand its not finished and I am genuinely trying here but would appreciate any help and directions to go down. regards tissot
-
Hi Ethel, Yes I am indeed the tenant and I am in fact trying to get a copy of the original lease from the leaseholder (Landlord) to see what it says. The actual tenancy agreement does not state anything about permits etc or restrictions on parking, would this not be supremacy of contract ? Or would it need to be evidenced in the lease itself ?
-
Thanks EB I shall get started on my WS and look at previous 'bare license' cases.
-
Here is the Claimant WS in PDF and suitably redacted, could an Admin remove the JPEGS from my last post please. Thanks tissot CLAIMANT_WS_REDACTED.pdf
-
Yes of course, I am using a tablet at the moment and don't have access to a PC so will do that as soon as possible !
-
Not sure where to start with the witness statement but seems the point is still valid about a contract between landowner and parking company, even if the contract exists between PPM and estate management ?
-
So they have given a date for the hearing 13th Feb, attached is claimant witness statement. And the contract they have with the estate management, no contract existsts with the freeholder or leaseholder.
-
So I called the courts again to clarify and turns out they have filed the relevant documents but I was never sent them from Gladstone's and they have just been sent to the court ! They have said it has now been allocated to the judge awaiting a date.
-
So a fair amount of time had passed and I phoned the courts to ask what was going on. Turns out I didn't receive a letter from the courts on the 11th June. The letter was just for my reference asking the claimant to.comply with CPR PD 7.3, 7.4 or 7.5 and serving documents. Turns out they haven't done this by the requested date 2nd July. The person I called from the local county court said this means I can apply for it to be struck off. Not sure how I go about this ? Kind Regards Tissot
-
I am awaiting the letter from the courts, the POC had to be in by 4th July which they put in early. So should receive confirmation from courts any day now for me to put my paperwork in.
-
So in terms of the signage there is nothing I can put in my WS about the wording of the contract that I can see ? Also to follow on from EB about point 4 of my WS, as I don't have access to the LL lease, am I doing myself over talking about the Tenancy agreement ?
-
I assumed post 77 was their WS ? And you are correct the sign is slightly different in their bundle to the one I posted a picture of.
-
That sign is on the fence directly behind my space.
-
Thanks EB, Will start editing it now, I have included photos of the actual signage in post 6 and they have included a digital copy in their bundle post 77. I don't quite know how to decipher the sign into something I can use, if at all ? I also do not have or have access to the landowners lease. Does that mean I cant use the primacy of contract argument ?
-
It's a mixture of different ones from different posts. Then edited so suit my case. I assume from that response I'm doing it wrong !
-
Here is my WS so far, would appreciate anyones input at this point so i dont start barking up the wrong tree. 1. I would contend that the operator does not have a clear, contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (or a chain of contracts between the Landowner, Managing agent and the operator) that gives them the right to issue charges in their own name. 2. Whilst it is accepted that they may have a contract which is signed by the Managing agents of the land, the Claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14 sent on the 12/03/2018 for the disclosure and the production of verified and legible copies of any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners, at the time of the alleged offence that allow the claimant (Parking and Property Management) to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. 3. It is strict proof that as the owner of the vehicle is the legal occupier of 000 Winterthur Way ,Victory Hill, they therefore have an expressed right to park in parking space No. 000 without becoming subject to the operators terms and conditions. 4.This is backed by the signed tenancy agreement between the tenant and landowner, see; ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY AGREEMENT – Clause 19.2 Page 12; CAR PARKING SPACE 19.2 To park in the space allocated to the property/Premises if the Tenant is allocated a car parking space. 5. The clauses in the Tenancy Agreement covering car parking spaces (19.1 – 19.6) have no reference to any legally binding contracts with any operators or mentions of having to display any permits. 6. Therefore, as the vehicle was parked in the allocated space with express permission of the landowner or their Managing agent, this overrides any contract that the operator forms with the vehicle owner in question via the signage placed on the site of Victory Hill. 7. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. 8. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
-
I did indeed, No to Mediation etc ! Also had the letter about a paper only hearing which I objected to.
-
So the time has come, Gladdys has 'emailed' me the particulars of claim. (All correspondence so far has been via mail) They must have got my email address from PPM when I was originally asking why I was getting a ticket in my own space. Which I am not happy my email has been passed on (I know its my own fault but I didn't know these things until finding the CAG)! PSA for the PDF (Redacted). I guess now is time to get my WS together. Is there anything I need to send them or the courts in reply ? Kind Regards, Tissot BUNDLE - Redacted.pdf
-
Thanks for this Fred, I hope mine is even simpler. The shear fact they don't have a contract with the landowner means the signs mean nothing in the first place. Guys on here have been so helpful and shall update every step of the way. Regards, tissot Attached is the latest letter from gladstones. gladdstonesform.pdf
