ES/Gladstones Claimform - PCN Kent Street Lpool - ***Claim Discontinued***

[hayho1]

Thank you both - N180 complete and sent

[hayho1]

Hi,

 

I have now received a letter - Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) - dated 22.02.2018

 

The hearing has been appointed to the County Court at Liverpool on 25.04.2018

 

I am required to send all documents (including my witness statement) no later than 28.03.2018

 

Any guidance re: my next steps would be much apptreciated

[dx100uk]

ok good

std procedure

go back to some of those Gladstone claimform threads you'll already read and you'll see several WS's already that will give you an idea what you need

but don't blink first let gladdy's send their first if we can...

[ericsbrother]

you have plenty of time to get everything sorted.

You will need to write why you dont owe them money and then have an index of the pictures and documents you wish to refer to and this will include previous cases and their references (ie a printout of the parking pranksters blog or even better a first hand report fo they exist) copies of the relevant laws so POFA and planning law.

 

It is common to just take one copy along to court with things like this as they are bread and butter and Gladdys know them well. They will try their luck with things like Eliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films.

 

These are irrelevant so you will include details of where Gladdys claims they count are rubbished.

Again look them up on the Pranksters blog for starters and then go to any other source referenced.

You use anything that is likely to crop up

 

It may be worth revisiting the site and grabbing more picutes of the entrance, the signage and even the layout of the car park

Edited February 25, 2018 by dx100uk
Paras

[hayho1]

hi all,

 

many thanks for your advice.

 

I'll get working on my WS and upload this for review to check wording, clarity etc.

 

To support this, I've uploaded a number of files, including

- overview of case

- correspondence to date

- issues with car park

- pics of car park

latest2.pdf

[dx100uk]

ONE MULTIPAGE PDF PLEASE!!

 

i'll sort these

[dx100uk]

sorted all pdf's merged

[hayho1]

Hi,

 

So I've today received the WS from SOLS which I've anonymised and attached.

 

I was very shocked to see a letter included in the bundle which I never received. This was apparently from the Collections Management Team at ES Parking!!!

 

Anyway, I hope to finish my own WS tomorrow.

 

Thank you

sols WS.pdf

[dx100uk]

well don't forget to use rewrite your WS now to pull theirs apart point by point

and that named person that wrote their WS MUST appear in court

if not, whomever is there cannot use anything in it...

[ericsbrother]

2 things, the WS is signed by an employee of ES so if they dont turn u you make a fuss about cross examining them and if that isnt possible you want the WS removed from the evidence bundle.

 

secondly they mention Eliott v Loake, which is irrelevant and Gladstone know this but they still keep adding it hoping that no-one notices that the relevant law is the POFA which has been ignored up until now so no keeper liability full stop Add copies for all of the cases mentioned in the parking pranksters blog so they judge can see which other judges have decided that it is garbage, they will then be "persuaded" that it isnt relevant case law ( also look up difference between persuasive cases, case law etc)

Edited March 20, 2018 by DragonFly1967
Spacing

[ericsbrother]

sent you a message laying out some points, if you can add to this then good.

I would also use other cases that are applicable so look at the last posting on the parking pranksters blog regarding keeper liability and copy it PLUS any other case referred to such as Bull and also push the noted judgement that the NTK must be FULLY compliant to mean anything or it means nothing

 

In what I sent you there is mention of them not being in the BPA when their paperwork says they are. Their signage says they are members of the independent Parking Committee. This is a private company that has nothing to do with the IPC (International Parking community) that they are members of and Gladstones have threatened to sue anyone claiming to be IPC members when using the former.

 

Add this to your WS (not the bit about suing) to show that their signage isnt Compliant with either Accredited Trade Associations codes of Practice and makes their application for your keeper details a breach of the DPA so agin unlawful conduct voids any contract.

t will be a good dig at Will and John, who own both Gladdys and the IPC

[shamrocker]

He added: “My experience helps me understand how clients feel - I have been through it and I know how important it is to have someone represent you.”

 

Any idea who once said the above? It sounds very upstanding anyway.

[ericsbrother]

just been reading through their Ws and found a couple of points.

 

there is no such company as Total carpark solutions so how has ES signed a contract with them?

 

secondly on that contract (p5 of their WS) point 2 refers to the signage providing 95% deterrent so if that is the intention then it isnt a sum for breach genuine offer of a contract but a deterrence and thus an unlawful penalty as reaffirmed in the judges comments in BEAVIS

 

SO in your WS start with a new point 1 and say that you do not belive that ES has locus standi as their contract is not with the landowner.

Sean O'neill isnt shown as a director of iliad group anyway and that is now a dissolved company so ES dont have a contract with anyone by the looks of it.

 

Michael James Mchale seems to be the person behind the shell companies involved in the iliad group and their mortgage precludes them from entering into contracts of the type that ES would claim to have unless this is site specific.

 

However, as they say that is about "performance" but to you it means that they cant enforce anything as they dont have the permission.

 

The iliad group appear to be developers of other peopels properties so a £3 land registry search wil be needed to see who actually owns the place.

You may find it is another shell company in the IOM

Edited March 26, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[shamrocker]

"12. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186;

(1) “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning."

 

How kind of them to provide a key authority on the subject for you. I wonder whose opinion the judge would accept.

[ericsbrother]

You should also write a second document for your evidence bundle that is called rebuttal of Es parking's witness statement.

 

Start off with reminding the court that Elliott v Loake was a CRIMINAL matter on a pubblic highway where there was other evidence as well.

This claim for liability under that case law has been found to be wanting in many other cases ( refer to some you can find on the parking pranksters blog and take copies of them with a suitable reference number to make it easy to find)

 

The POFA does not require anyone to name the driver and because ES parking have failed to follow its protocols they have no-one else but themselves to blame for not identifying the driver or even givinga notice to the driver as per paras 2 and 7.

 

secondly their contract state that " all offending vehicles need to eb tickets" as part of their contractual obligation. they have failed to do this.

 

at point 11 they say they have a contract with the landowner but have fialed to show this contractual authority in their evidence.

They then rely upon trying to confuse the difference between the contract with the landowner with the contract offered by way of their signage.

The POFA makse it clear they do need the authority in 5(1)a.

 

The VCS v HMRC makes it clear that the parking co MUST have a contract with the motorist and in this case they dont and certainly dont have one with the defendant as the keeper of the vehicle.

 

at point 14 they say the charge is not penal yet their contact with whoever they have signed it with makes it clear that it is a penalty and is designed to be a deterrent so they are not entitled to remedy

 

for point 15 the POFA only allows the demand to be that which is in the notice to keeper if relying on the POFA to create a keeper liability.

This is absolute.

 

regarding point 16 it has been denied that any sum is due and so any costs accrued are entirely because the claimant wished to continue with an unreasonable action rather than a genuine attempt to recover a debt.

Edited March 26, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[ericsbrother]

that was not raised in the appeal of 2016 so it must stand that The normal chain of authority must exist. If not then ES are caught by the unfair terms rejection of contract of the CRA.

"12. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186;

(1) “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning."

 

How kind of them to provide a key authority on the subject for you. I wonder whose opinion the judge would accept.

[hayho1]

Many thanks for your incredible support and guidance throughout my case.

 

Being unfamiliar to this area makes it difficult to remain on track and keep knowledge up-to-date.

 

Incredibly useful information provided.

 

WS currently in process of finishing.

Edited March 27, 2018 by hayho1
spelling

[ericsbrother]

so, number your pictures and refer to them in WS.

Add case law and statute law referred to as docs in bundle.

 

do same for any cases or other sources quoted and again where referenced in WS just put see doc 3 in bundle (or whatever)

 

keep the file labelled with those little tabs so you can find them.

the judge will appreciate this rather than having to turn to page 17 and then back to page 3 and back to 18 etc

[ericsbrother]

another point I forgot to mention- no need to change your WS but just remember to note it-

The agreement signed by Mr o'Neill only lasted a year and they offer no evidence of a renewal.

[dx100uk]

15 pages is far too long.

 

better to copy and paste your WS here so people can copy and edit it live.

[hayho1]

Sorry for the late (near) completion of my WS.

 

This was a challenge but I do hope it is of good quality.

 

As advised, I completed 2 parts - 1 re: Keeper liability, Contract etc. Part 2 re: Rebuttal of Claimant WS.

 

There are some additional searches, case law etc which I need to add (highlighted in yellow)

 

But I wanted to check the main bulk. Would greatly appreciate comments and further pointers.

 

Many thanks.

 

I recognise it's long, thought better to be longer and chop than too little.

 

Would much appreciate on points where to chop.

 

Part 1 – Witness Statement

 

 

This is the witness statement of XXX, defendant in the case of ES Parking Enforcement Limited v XXX (Case ref: XXX).

 

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle - Registration Number: XXX. It is alleged that money is owed by the defendant as a result of a breach of contract at:

 

Kent Street Car Park

Kent Street

Liverpool

L1 5DA.

 

 

This is denied for the following reasons.

 

 

 

1.

 

The claimants have failed to show in what capacity they are claiming monies from the defendant. They are deliberately confusing the matter by not stating this. The defendant therefore puts it to STRICT PROOF as to who was the driver at the time; or, they state clearly that they are suing the keeper in that capacity and produce evidence that they have followed the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to create a keeper liability because this is denied.

 

 

2.

 

There was no offer of a contract so therefore it follows that there cannot be a claim for a

breach of contract.

 

 

 

 

 

2a.

 

(APPENDIX 1).

 

There was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach, so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else. The terms supposedly entered into are not stated in the claim.

 

 

The signage at the entrance to the site and the signage at various other parts of the car park are contradictory and confusing. They lack the coherence to offer terms that may be clearly understood so it cannot be said to be fair or enforceable.

 

• For example, the 1st signage (Entrance of Premises) says “Your vehicle must be parked in a designated bay” - this condition was not breached.

 

• For example, the 2nd signage (To right of Entrance of Premises) says “Vehicles must be parked legally and not causing an obstruction” - this condition too was not breached.

 

There is a clamping release fee of £125 (APPENDIX 2) - clamping on private land is unlawful and the threat to commit an unlawful act cannot be part of a contractual term. The whole contract thus becomes void.

 

 

The tariffs listed are contradictory (APPENDIX 3) so again cannot be said to be an offer of a contract under the Consumer rights Act 2015 (CRA), with particular reference to para 62(2) (APPENDIX 4).

 

 

2b.

 

The claimant has not shown proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, which they rely on to make contracts with the public. Without the necessary planning permission, their signage is there illegally and it is therefore not possible to enter into a criminal compact. So again, no offer has been made by the signage.

 

2c.

 

(APPENDIX 5)

 

It is believed that ES Parking does not have locus standi as their contract, assigning right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name, is not with the landowner. ES Parking have failed to show this contractual authority in their evidence.

 

ES Parking claim to have signed a contract with Total CarPark Solutions but the company does not exist.

 

The Private Parking Protection Agreement is signed by Sean O’Neill on behalf of the proprietor. Sean O'Neill is not shown as a director of Iliad group (Company Director until February 2017).

 

Iliad is now a dissolved company. Their mortgage therefore precludes them from entering into contracts of the type that ES Parking would claim to have (unless this is site specific).

 

 

3.

 

The claimant does not say in what capacity the defendant is being sued. The defendant is the keeper but not the driver, yet there is no keeper liability in this matter as ES Parking have failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to create one for the following reasons:

 

 

3a.

 

The Notice to keeper (NTK) (APPENDIX 6) was not issued until the 3rd August and not received until the 7th August, both dates too late to create a keeper liability under para 4 and 9 of the POFA (APPENDIX 7, 8).

 

The NTK does not mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

The pictures (APPENDIX 9) are taken with a manual hand-held camera not CCTV or ANPR (i.e. ANPR doesn’t show the alleged infringement, just the comings and goings of the vehicle). Para 9 of the POFA is therefore being used when it is not required. The NTK issued is therefore invalid.

 

3b.

 

The early payment discount is advertised as £50 on the car park signage, yet the demand in the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is £60 (APPENDIX 10) – an unfair contractual term as it was not advertised at the time. This renders the entire demand void as it thus fails to meet the criteria of para 4 of the POFA to create any liability whatsoever.

 

 

3c.

 

(APPENDIX 11)

 

ES Parking claim to be a member of the British Parking association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) but their signage is not compliant with either Accredited Trade Associations codes of Practice. The application for keeper details is thus in breach of the Data Protection Act, so again unlawful conduct which voids any contract.

 

• For example, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) received by the defendant documents the British Parking association (BPA) logo and states that ES Parking have membership:

 

- This does not appear on any other document (including the NTK included in the Witness Statement of the Claimant), or any of the signage posted in and around the premises (including the signage included in the Witness Statement of the Claimant).

 

- ES Parking also do not appear in the listings of Approved Operators published online by the British Parking association (BPA).

 

 

• For example, two of the documents included in the Claimant’s Witness Statement document the International Parking Community (IPC) logo.

 

- Again, this does not appear on any other document, or any of the signage posted in and around the premises.

 

- Whilst ES Parking are listed on the International Parking community website, the signage in and around the premises only indicate membership to the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), a private company that has nothing to do with the International Parking community (IPC).

4.

 

(APPENDIX 12)

 

The amount claimed has not been explained as to how it is constructed. The maximum amount that can ever be due as a result of keeper liability would be £100 as para 9(d) of the POFA. Any other terms regarding indemnity could only apply to the driver at the time and that would require notice being given to the driver under paras 5 and 8 of the POFA and that has not been done.

 

 

(APPENDIX 13)

 

The penalty for the breach of conditions is contradictory, so again cannot be said to be an offer of a contract.

 

 

 

The claim breaches CPR 16.4 as a result of their failures to show a cause for action as outlined in points 1, 2 and 4.

 

 

 

This is my statement of truth.

 

Dated: 9th April 2018

 

(sign)

 

Part 2 - Rebuttal ES Parking Witness Statement (WS)

 

 

Registered Address

 

The registered address for the company is contradictory. The address on the signage is not consistent with the address on the NTK or first page of ES Parking’ Witness Statement (APPENDIX 14).

 

 

2(i).

 

The claimant has not shown proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Without the necessary planning permission, their signage is there illegally and it is therefore not possible to enter into a criminal compact. So again, no offer has been made by the signage.

 

 

(ii).

 

There was no offer of a contract so therefore it follows that there cannot be a claim for a

breach of contract.

 

(APPENDIX 1)

 

The Claimant has provided evidence of only ONE out of THREE signs displayed in and around the premises. All signs are inconsistent, contradictory and confusing.

 

There was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach, so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else. The terms supposedly entered into are not stated in the claim.

 

They lack the coherence to offer terms that may be clearly understood so it cannot be said to be fair or enforceable.

 

The threat to commit an unlawful act cannot be part of a contractual term. The whole contract thus becomes void.

 

2(iii).

 

(APPENDIX 15)

 

ES Parking’ site plan alleges that the FIRST sign observed and displayed (at the entrance of the site) is a white sign which documents the condition: “Your vehicle must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay”.

 

This is incorrect. The FIRST sign observed and displayed (at the entrance of the site) is a yellow sign which documents the condition: “Your vehicle must be parked within a designated bay”.

 

 

2(iv).

 

The NTK received by the Defendant documents the BPA logo. The NTK provided by the Claimant does not document the BPA logo (APPENDIX 11).

 

 

The Claimant includes a Notice within their bundle which they allege was issued to the Defendant. This was never received. This document is produced by the Collections Management Team (ES Parking) and requesting payment of an outstanding valance - £125.00 (APPENDIX 16).

 

It is alleged that the notice was issued to the Defendant on the 1st September 2017. Had this have been received, this would have arrived between receiving the NTK (£100) and the Letter Before Claim (£160).

 

 

2(v).

 

The pictures (APPENDIX 9) are taken with a manual hand-held camera not CCTV or ANPR (i.e. ANPR doesn’t show the alleged infringement, just the comings and goings of the vehicle). Para 9 of the POFA is therefore being used when it is not required. The NTK issued is therefore invalid.

 

 

 

3.

 

There was no offer of a contract so therefore it follows that there cannot be a claim for a

breach of contract.

 

(APPENDIX 1)

 

There was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach, so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else. The terms supposedly entered into are not stated in the claim.

 

They lack the coherence to offer terms that may be clearly understood so it cannot be said to be fair or enforceable.

 

The Notice to keeper (NTK) (APPENDIX 6) was not issued until the 3rd August and not received until the 7th August, both dates too late to create a keeper liability under para 4 and 9 of the POFA (APPENDIX 7, 8).

 

 

THE DEFEDENANT’S LIABILITY

 

4.

 

re: The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983

 

o Criminal case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR36 held that the registered keeper of the vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption:

- irrelevant and hoping that no-one notices that the relevant law is the POFA which has been ignored up until now so no keeper liability full stop!

- Add copies for all of the cases mentioned in the parking pranksters blog so they judge can see which other judges have decided that it is garbage, they will then be "persuaded" that it isn’t relevant case law (also look up difference between persuasive cases, case law etc)

- Start off with reminding the court that Elliott v Loake was a CRIMINAL matter on a public highway where there was other evidence as well. This claim for liability under that case law has been found to be wanting in many other cases (refer to some you can find on the parking pranksters blog and take copies of them with a suitable reference number to make it easy to find)

- The POFA does not require anyone to name the driver but because ES parking have failed to follow its protocols they have no-one else but themselves to blame for not identifying the driver or even giving a notice to the driver as per paras 2 and 7.

MADE MANY ATTEMPTS TO SAY NO KEEPER LIABILITY!!!

 

o Eliott v Loake & CPS v AJH films - These are irrelevant so you will include details of where Gladdys claims they count are rubbished. Again, look them up on the Pranksters blog for starters and then go to any other source referenced.

 

 

There is no legal obligation for the Defendant to identify the driver as no keeper Liability created in this matter (ES Parking failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

The Letter Before Claim (issued 16th September 2017) stated that the Defendant had failed to settle the debts owing or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This was responded to with a brief letter from the Defendant (issued 6th October 2017), clearly outlining that there was no Keeper liability in this matter, as ES Parking had failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) (APPENDIX 17).

 

This is not included in ES Parking’ evidence bundle.

 

 

Gladstones SOLS responded to the Defendant’ enquiry (issued 23rd November 2017: APPENDIX 18). This makes allegations in relation to the Defendant which are confusing and unfounded. For example:

 

• “From these (photographs) you can clearly see that they you have not parked within the bay”.

 

• “our Client’s terms and conditions of parking are set out on sign you are parked next to”.

 

• “Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not, that you, the registered keeper was driving”.

 

This is not included in ES Parking’ evidence bundle.

 

 

5 - 7.

 

No Keeper Liability created in this matter as ES Parking have failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

The Notice to keeper (NTK) (APPENDIX 6) was not issued until the 3rd August and not received until the 7th August, both dates too late to create a keeper liability under para 4 and 9 of the POFA (APPENDIX 7, 8).

 

 

THE CONTRACT

 

8.

 

My Company relies on the case of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], in which it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.

 

There was no offer of a contract so therefore it follows that there cannot be a claim for a

breach of contract.

 

ES Parking have failed to identify the debtor (driver of the vehicle) and have failed to create keeper liability in this matter due to failure to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

The threat to commit an unlawful act cannot be part of a contractual term. The whole contract thus becomes void.

 

 

The claimant has not shown proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, which they rely on to make contracts with the public. Without the necessary planning permission, their signage is there illegally and it is therefore not possible to enter into a criminal compact. So again, no offer has been made by the signage.

 

(APPENDIX 5)

 

It is believed that ES Parking does not have locus standi as their contract, assigning right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name, is not with the landowner. ES Parking have failed to show this contractual authority in their evidence.

 

ES Parking claim to have signed a contract with Total CarPark Solutions but the company does not exist.

 

Sean O'Neill is not shown as a director of Iliad group (Company Director until February 2017), and Iliad is now a dissolved company. Their mortgage therefore precludes them from entering into contracts of the type that ES Parking would claim to have (unless this is site specific).

 

 

9.

 

(APPENDIX 1)

 

There was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach, so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else. The terms supposedly entered into are not stated in the claim.

 

They lack the coherence to offer terms that may be clearly understood so it cannot be said to be fair or enforceable.

 

This point also implies that the Defendant was driving (“by parking in the manner in which they did”). ES Parking have failed to identify the debtor (driver of the vehicle) and have failed to create keeper liability in this matter due to failure to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

 

10.

 

(APPENDIX 1)

 

The condition documented is contradictory to the alleged breach, and only ONE out of THREE signs displayed in and around the premises displays this condition.

All signs in and around the premises are inconsistent, contradictory and confusing. They lack the coherence to offer terms that may be clearly understood so it cannot be said to be fair or enforceable, so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else. The terms supposedly entered into are not stated in the claim.

 

 

This point also implies that the Defendant was driving (“the defendant parked outside the confines of a marked bay”). ES Parking have failed to identify the debtor (driver of the vehicle) and have failed to create keeper liability in this matter due to failure to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

 

The Notice to keeper (NTK) (APPENDIX 6) was not correctly issued. This was sent on the 3rd August 2017 and not received until the 7th August 2017, both dates too late to create a keeper liability under para 4 and 9 of the POFA (APPENDIX 7, 8).

 

 

AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE CHARGES

 

11 – 12.

 

The VCS v HMRC (2013) makes it clear that the parking company MUST have a contract with the motorist which in this case they do not. The parking company also does not have a contract with the defendant as the keeper of the vehicle.

 

There was no offer of a contract so therefore it follows that there cannot be a claim for a

breach of contract.

 

ES Parking have failed to identify the debtor (driver of the vehicle) and have failed to create keeper liability in this matter due to failure to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

The threat to commit an unlawful act cannot be part of a contractual term. The whole contract thus becomes void.

 

 

 

 

THE CHARGE

 

13.

 

(APPENDIX 12)

 

The amount claimed (£160) has not been explained as to how it is constructed. The maximum amount that can ever be due as a result of keeper liability would be £100 as para 9(d) of the POFA. Any other terms regarding indemnity could only apply to the driver at the time and that would require notice being given to the driver under paras 5 and 8 of the POFA and that has not been done.

 

 

14.

 

ES Parking state that the charge is not penal, yet their contact (with whoever they have signed it with) makes it clear that it is a penalty and is designed to be a deterrent. So, it follows that they are not entitled to remedy.

 

 

THE CURRENT DEBT

 

15.

 

The POFA only allows the demand to be that which is in the notice to keeper if relying on the POFA to create a keeper liability. This is absolute.

 

 

16.

 

It has been denied that any sum is due and so any costs accrued are entirely because the claimant wished to continue with an unreasonable action rather than a genuine attempt to recover a debt.

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL POINTS

 

The Private Parking Protection Agreement (APPENDIX 5)

 

 

Clause 3.

 

This contract states that " all offending vehicles which need to be ticketed must have at least one sign visible …" as part of their contractual obligation.

 

ES Parking have failed to do this.

 

 

 

Clause 2. (re: WS p5)

 

This contract states that “the signs should provide a 95% deterrent, therefore the company cannot be expected to ‘ticket’ vehicles on a ‘call out’ basis…”

 

If that is the intention then it is not a sum for breaching genuine offer of a contract, but a deterrence and thus an unlawful penalty (as reaffirmed in the judges’ comments in BEAVIS). However, as they say that is about "performance" but to you it means that they can’t enforce anything as they dont have the permission.

 

 

Clause 8.

 

“this agreement is for an initial period of one year and thereafter is subject to termination in accordance with the terms and conditions overleaf…”

 

“ES Parking agrees to carry out the obligations in cause 3 in consideration for the charges within the terms and conditions overleaf … “

 

 

The agreement is signed and dated 12th February 2015.

 

The terms and conditions referred to overleaf are not provided with the signed agreement.

Claim Form (APPENDIX 19)

 

ES Parking and Gladstone Sols have used a lie in their claim saying by saying that the defendant is the driver and OR is the keeper. The claimant has failed to identify the debtor (driver of the vehicle) and cannot rely on keeper details of the vehicle.

 

No Keeper Liability created in this matter as ES Parking have failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

 

 

CPR 31:14 Request (APPENDIX 20)

 

ES Parking and Gladstone Sols failed to show of locus standi by way of sight of

 

i) planning permission for signage under Town and Country Planning Act 2007 that they rely on to make contracts with public;

ii) Contract between themselves and landowner assigning right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in their own name; and,

iii) iii) copies of the NTD, NTK, and any other correspondence from ES and SOLS limited to the defendant which they intend to rely upon in court, by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

Email from Gladstone Sols (APPENDIX 21)

 

The defendant received an email from Gladstone Sols after submitting their defence online. This requested for the case to be dealt without an oral hearing as

 

“the matter in our client’s opinion is relatively straight forward”

APPENDIX 1 RE POINT 2A - INCONSISTENT SIGNAGE (TERMS AND CONDITIONS).pdf

APPENDIX 2 RE POINT 2A - CLAMPING.pdf

APPENDIX 3 RE POINT 2A - INCONSISTENT SIGNAGE (TARRIFS).pdf

[dx100uk]

no far too long

it will be mostly ignored.

 

have a look at the other WS's here there are plenty.

[ericsbrother]

WS should be your side of things and then the rest goes as separate parts of your bundle but note the document or page number when you quote it in your WS so any evidence regarding their contract with landowner is either in the rebuttal or as a separate document

dont mix the 2 together.

 

 

Also where their contract is mentioned make the point that there was no renewal after a year.

 

The judge may decide the importance of that as it has been considered that for a consumer contract they must have a proper licence to operate there whereas their business to business contract would not really worry about this.

 

You dont need things like Gladdys email you mention at the end, it isnt relevant or useful

[hayho1]

Thank you for advice. Will make amendments ASAP

[ericsbrother]

yoou need to go to the parking pranksters blogspot and look at the cases that are persuasive or compelling there, they are nothing to do with cag. Also look at the last december 2017 blog for the link to the article on planning law