PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Residential parking, Loss for PPM represented by a Barrister instructed by Gladstones
Eljayjay
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 00:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Hopefully, the transcript below will give a bit of a boost to anyone fighting off a residential parking case. I am sorry to say that, in pasting and copying, the transcript has lost some of its formatting.

The District Judge mentioned that she thought my witness statement was overly long. As I did not know what I might need to defend against, I decided to cover anything and everything. Although the case was settled on one of the first issues discussed, I am glad that, if I had lost on that issue, there would have been lots of arguments still to come.

I did not succeed in my counterclaim. I had, however, only brought the counterclaim, which was for just £150, to ensure that PPM could not discontinue without there being a hearing (as they had done in two other claims against me). My witness and I did, however, get our costs for travel and lost earnings on the day.

In any event, the fact that PPM chose to be represented by a barrister, who had spent the previous day preparing a statement of legal arguments on their behalf, must have cost them far more than the counterclaim.

Essentially the case turned on the parking agreement. It was signed by Vinny Kapoor on behalf of PPM and Andrew Copley who, on the document described himself as being a director of the freeholder (but he was not and never has been a director of that company) and falsely gave the freeholder's address as being care of his own company.

I did feel a little sympathy for PPM's barrister because, although he tried his utmost to justify Andrew Copley's description of himself on the agreement, the District Judge simply could not ignore the evidence (obtained free of charge from the Companies House website - the gov.uk version) that he had purported himself to be something which he was and is not.

The District Judge also mentioned that, even if Andrew Copley had been a director of the freeholder, the parking agreement would not in any event have met the requirements contained in Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

I am extremely grateful to those who contribute to this forum. Although I did a great deal of research into my lease, Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so on, without their help and guidance, I am sure that I would not have achieved my victory.

For those still fighting, my advice to you is treat everything that you are told and every document that you are given by the dark side with a high degree of scepticism. Check it thoroughly. In addition, in a residential case, do make sure that you really get to grips with the terms of your lease. Good luck!


IN THE CROYDON COUNTY COURT No. D4GF31W1



The Law Courts
Altyre Road, Croydon, CR9 5AB
Friday, 17th November 2017


Before:


DISTRICT JUDGE HAY



B E T W E E N :


PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED Claimant

- and -

JOHN JONES Defendant


_________


MR B. TOMPKINS (instructed by Gladstones Solicitors Limited) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

THE DEFENDANT appeared as a Litigant-in-Person.

__________


J U D G M E N T
DISTRICT JUDGE HAY:

1 This is a final hearing of a claim brought by Parking and Property Management Limited and the defendant is Mr John Jones. It is matter number D4GF31W1 and parties attended, or certainly the claimant attended anticipating it was also a final hearing of another parking claim, the same facts almost, just on a different date, that being D0GF641E7, but that claim was actually struck out by the court on 6th November for non-payment of a hearing fee. Mr Tompkins, who represents the claimant, did ask that I hear his oral application for relief from sanctions at the start of the hearing this afternoon, but I refused that, given that there was no written application and no witness evidence in support of the application. So, we have been dealing with one claim today which relates to a parking charge which was incurred on 28th November 2016.

2 The claim was issued on 26th April 2017. The parking ticket is £100 and there is a late payment penalty of £60, so the total fee for parking charges is £160. The claimant is also seeking interest of £3.90 up to the point that the claim was issued, as well a court fee of £25 and solicitors’ costs on the issue of £50, bringing the total claim to £238.

3 The defendant filed a defence dated 21st May and he accepted that the vehicle was parked at the relevant spot which was at Hillview Place, West Street, Newbury. He accepts that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration number P1 VBA. He says that the claimant had shown no cause of action and he believes that the claimant is abusing the court process. He goes on to raise a number of points and filed a 60-page witness statement with a number of exhibits, most of which I consider to be on irrelevant points but having heard from both parties it seems to me that the nub of the case is whether or not the agreement entered into or the agreement that the claimants rely on, which both parties have exhibited but I have got it open before me at tab 3, p.5 of the claimant’s bundle, and that is the document that the claimant says entitles them to run the parking scheme on behalf of the owners of the property.

4 Today I have heard from Mr Tompkins, who represented the claimant. The claimant relies on the statement of David Blake, but David Blake did not attend to give evidence or to present himself for cross-examination. I was not either given written notice beforehand asking me to proceed based on his written evidence alone. I know that it’s standard practice for parking companies to ask for a hearing on the papers only, but that standard direction was rejected. Therefore, I would have expected him to give oral evidence and because he is not here and because he has not presented himself for cross-examination and I have not been given a notice asking me to just simply read his evidence I will attach less weight to it. I have also noted that it is a very short witness statement. Much of it is simply cut and pasted and a lot of it does not actually deal with the pertinent points.

5 On behalf of the defendant I have had a lengthy witness statement from Mr Jones, as I have already mentioned, and he also filed a witness statement by another occupier of the housing development, Mr Ferguson. Mr Ferguson is here, but the claimant did not want to put any questions to him and I did not either because the matters that he refers to in his evidence relate to matters that came to light on a situation that arose in the middle of this year from May to June onwards which, obviously, does not cover the pertinent dates of this parking fine, which was for a parking contravention on 28th November 2016.

6 There have been quite a few parking cases that have clogged up the courts in recent years but the real focal point here, the fulcrum of this case rests on whether or not the agreement exhibited by the claimant was sufficient to give rise to the legal rights to enable Parking and Property Management Limited to operate this parking scheme in this housing development. So, the document that Mr Blake exhibits to his witness statement:

“The agreement authorising my company to manage parking on the relevant land as described therein and herein after referred to as “the relevant land”…”

He exhibits that as the first exhibit to his witness statement at p.5 of his witness statement and it is headed:

“Parking and Property Management Limited. This is an agreement between us, the undersigned, at Parking and Property Management Limited, who are hereby authorised to operate a parking enforcement service on the land specified of which we are the appropriate managing agent.”

It mentions the address of the land and it sets out the text of the agreement and then at the bottom it says that it is signed for and on behalf of the client, signed Mr Andrew Copley, company name, Premier Grounds Rents Number 4 Limited, c/o Chaneys Chartered Surveyors, the address has been scored out and handwritten underneath it is an address, position in the company, Director, dated 7th November 2016 and then below that it is signed “for and on behalf of the service provider Vinny Kapoor, so presumably that is on behalf of Parking and Property Management Limited.

7 My decision, then, is that this document here is not sufficient to authorise Parking and Property Management Limited to run a parking scheme on the estate. I find that this document has not been validly executed. Anyone looking at this would assume that it had been signed by Mr Andrew Copley in his capacity as the Company Director of Premier Ground Rents Number 4 Limited, who are the landlords of this particular property development. I am told that Mr Copley is a Director of Chaneys Chartered Surveyors, who are the landlord’s agents, but I have got no evidence of there being an agency agreement. The defendant tells me that Copleys are, in fact, the agents of the management company, which again is a separate company from Premier Ground Rents Number 4 Limited. The defendant says to me that the management company (inaudible) and Pinnacle. The defendant tells me that Pinnacle are the agents of the landlord and Chaneys are the agents of Hillview House, Newbury.

(Interchange of clarification between the District Judge and the Defendant)

8 The long and the short of it is that I do not find that this document has been validly executed. As I say, if it had been a validly executed document on behalf of Parking and Property Management Limited, it should have been signed by a director of that company, it should have been signed by two directors, in fact, or it should be signed by one director and witnessed by the second in accordance with s.44 of the Companies Act. Mr Copley is not a director of Premier Ground Rents. As it is, there is no clear evidence. The claimant has not presented any evidence on this point at all. The evidence that the defendant gives me is oral evidence only, but it is more convincing that, in fact, Chaneys are not the agents of Premier Ground Rents Number 4 at all, they are the agents of another management company that deal with cleaning and gardening around the estate, whereas the other agent that is involved and one that is not connected with Ground Rent is Pinnacle.

9 So, effectively, what this means is that the entire scheme is invalid and they have got no legitimacy in issuing parking tickets for this land because this document is not sufficient, it does not meet the requirements for validly executed document on behalf of the management company. If, as is being suggested by the claimant, it is an agency situation, it is not clear at all that Mr Copley is acting as agent and it says “Position in the Company - Director. Company Name - Premier Ground Rents”. It is clear that on any reasonable construction and construal of this document, Mr Copley is holding himself out as purporting to be a director of Premier Ground Rents Number 4, which he simply is not.

10 So, on that basis, I think that the entire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for Parking and Property Management to issue parking tickets or to operate a scheme in this estate. So, I am dismissing the claim.

11 There is a counterclaim. I cannot see that there is anything in it. It is clear that they have issued a number of tickets to Mr Jones, but he has not paid those tickets. So, he has not lost anything financially. His claim is for “unwarranted and substantial damage or distress inflicted by the claimant”. He has not particularised the damage or distress. He has not suffered any financial loss as a result of these proceedings because he has not paid his counterclaim fee of £25. I am not satisfied that there is any merit in the counterclaim. I accept that, obviously, Mr Jones has been put to considerable inconvenience, and so forth, in dealing with these numerous parking tickets, but he will be entitled to claim his out of pocket travel expenses of coming today. I am not convinced there is any merit in the counterclaim, so I am striking out the counterclaim.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 01:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 00:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
emanresu
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 07:28
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,755
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Great news. This looks like an official transcript. If it is, could you make a hard copy on court paperwork available for people to use?


There are also a lot of dodgy contracts being floated at court so everyone should be encouraged to check the WS they are sent for what is essentially fraudulent documents.

You might also send a copy of the transcript to the DVLA and point out that PPM are accessing the RK database without authority and copy in Greg Knight MP too.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 07:32


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 09:00
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,280
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So can other residents who have suffered and paid have a claim for a refund based on the comments of the judge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 09:16
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 09:00) *
So can other residents who have suffered and paid have a claim for a refund based on the comments of the judge?


That's what I would read into his comments. Presumably they HAVE suffered financial loss.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 09:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,200
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, they should send a LBA. Include in that an amount for breach of DPA - they had no right o access the RK database, at any point for any reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 09:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Ahhh, feeling nostalgic now, does anyone else remember the good old days when a PPC applying for RK details for land on which they had no valid contract to operate used to get a three month ban from the DVLA?

I wonder whatever happened to that? Ahhhh, the good old days....


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:51
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,526
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



So much for the IPC auditing process...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 17:26
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Many thanks for your comments.

I have emailed a copy of the transcript received from the transcription service to the Parking Prankster so that he can, if he feels it would make an appropriate addition, include it in either his case law or more case law section.

I also intend to get in touch with the IPS, DVLA and ICO to complain about Parking and Property Management Limited obtaining my personal details from DVLA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 00:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,526
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE
8 The long and the short of it is that I do not find that this document has been validly executed. As I say, if it had been a validly executed document on behalf of Parking and Property Management Limited, it should have been signed by a director of that company, it should have been signed by two directors, in fact, or it should be signed by one director and witnessed by the second in accordance with s.44 of the Companies Act.[/i]
[Emphasis added.]
Really? My understanding was that a UK company could enter into a contract using the much simpler method specified under s.43(1)(b), which provides that a company contract may be made "on behalf of the company by any person with express or implied authority to do so".

Section 44 CA 2006 applies when a document is (for some reason) required to be executed BY the company itself, rather than "on behalf of" the company by a person mentioned in s.43(1)(b). I am aware that certain documents relating to real property are required, by the relevant statutory provisions, to be executed by the company itself, but if there is no specific statutory requirement, there is no requirement under CA 2006 to apply the more stringent execution formalities found under s.44 thereof. I suppose it is possible that there is an applicable statute relating to contracts of this nature (which does somewhat involve real property), but if so, the judge has omitted to mention that premise...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 06:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,602
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE
Essentially the case turned on the parking agreement. It was signed by Vinny Kapoor on behalf of PPM and Andrew Copley who, on the document described himself as being a director of the freeholder (but he was not and never has been a director of that company) and falsely gave the freeholder's address as being care of his own company.

I did feel a little sympathy for PPM's barrister because, although he tried his utmost to justify Andrew Copley's description of himself on the agreement, the District Judge simply could not ignore the evidence (obtained free of charge from the Companies House website - the gov.uk version) that he had purported himself to be something which he was and is not.


Signing a statement of truth without an honest belief in it's truth is contempt of court. The judge should have instigated this. Many don't, it's a travesty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 06:40
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,755
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
Signing a statement of truth without an honest belief in it's truth is contempt of court. The judge should have instigated this. Many don't, it's a travesty.


Sometimes they do - but it is difficult to prove. Take this guy for example.

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/903...r_court_ordeal/


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 11:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 223
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



I am no expert on company law, but section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 does start with:-

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a)by two authorised signatories, or
(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 16:33
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



I've been executing contracts for various companies for well in excess of 15 years now, and its always one signature by an authorised representative (usually a person with sufficient seniority to cover the value of the contract). Never seen two signatories required, nor an attestation by a second director.

We always accept a contract if its been signed by someone we believe to be authorised to do so.

Pretty much in line with what Churchmouse has said above. I agree that if someone signs as an agent and they're clearly not an agent, then that contract is invalidly executed, but I've never heard of this 'two directors' stuff.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 17:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,755
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
Pretty much in line with what Churchmouse has said above. I agree that if someone signs as an agent and they're clearly not an agent, then that contract is invalidly executed, but I've never heard of this 'two directors' stuff.


Agree but you put it in. Everyone also agrees that EvL and VCS v HMRC is nonsense but it is there in every Gladstones claim. Why? Because some judges want an excuse and will latch onto certain points.

Had one case where the "we can sell Buck Pal.." was accepted. So put it in if it there is a question on the contract. Sometimes tactics rather than logic works.


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:00
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,526
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 11:27) *
I am no expert on company law, but section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 does start with:-

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a)by two authorised signatories, or
(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

Yes, but that wasn't the point. IF s.44 applies, then two signatures, etc. are required. But, I can see no obvious reason why s.44 applies in the situation mentioned by the DJ, so the much simpler procedure provided by s.43 should be sufficient. (There is a difference between a document executed "by a company" and one executed "on behalf of a company"; I think maybe that difference has eluded the DJ?)

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 17:11) *
QUOTE
Pretty much in line with what Churchmouse has said above. I agree that if someone signs as an agent and they're clearly not an agent, then that contract is invalidly executed, but I've never heard of this 'two directors' stuff.


Agree but you put it in. Everyone also agrees that EvL and VCS v HMRC is nonsense but it is there in every Gladstones claim. Why? Because some judges want an excuse and will latch onto certain points.

Had one case where the "we can sell Buck Pal.." was accepted. So put it in if it there is a question on the contract. Sometimes tactics rather than logic works.

Sorry, I don't think it benefits anyone to emulate Gladstones...

--Churchmouse

This post has been edited by Churchmouse: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 21st February 2018 - 19:05
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.