PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Control Management PCM, driver stopped for 1 min on private road, E11 Leytonstone
WapChimney
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that was photographed stopped on a private section of Joseph Ray Road, Leytonstone, E11. I have received a Parking Charge from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM).

I believe the vehicle was stopped for no more than 60 seconds, before it was then driven away. The photograph was taken during this 1 minute by a man lurking at one end of the road, dressed in casual clothing.

Attached is the letter I received.

Any advice on best course of action would be appreciated. Thanks. smile.gif

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Fri, 26 May 2017 - 23:25
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 119)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 11:35
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:15) *
Try splitting it out this way then,

The claimant states that the defendant or his company agreed a contract by reading the signs.

This is denied

1. The claimant has no evidence that the defendant or their company was present.

2. It is also in breach of its Code of Practice Part B 15.1 that drivers must be allowed a grace period to read signs and decide whether to stay or leave. So any driver present could not agree a contract in any case.

That's great, thanks kommando.

Does all else look ok?

Also, in my original defence, regarding their (finger in the air) list of costs I wrote: "The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that this fee was both invoiced and paid for, and that the time spent justifies the £50 claimed."

They have not addressed this in their witness statement, or provided proof.

Do I point this out this failure in my witness statement, or is that for discussion on the day?

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:09
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You realise they lie, yes?

THey can state teh agreement is with the D all they like, but ACTUALLY the contract can ONLY exist with the Driver, who they need to PROVE IS THE DEFENDANT or someone else.
Thats part of THEIR burden. Dont d otheir

In your skeleton argument (NOT YET! do the WS FIRST) you can mention the fact they have not proven theyve paid anything , let alone £50.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:31
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks for confirming nosferatu1001.

In Bargepole's Newbie post on MSE he mentions including copies of Schedule 4 of the POFA and POPLA Annual Report 2015 section 'Understanding Keeper Liability', although I've not mentioned them, should I include them for back up if they come up verbally?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:35
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Have those in your bundle on the day. You dont submit POFA as evidence - it isnt, its law - and Greenslade is only opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 15:27
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Should the same go for the PCMUK v Bull, Parking Eye v Beavis and IPC Code of Practice docs?

Ie I don't need to include them today, just take copies along on the day?

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 15:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 16:32
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They're not laws, and you are relying on the rulings

So you include small excerpts in your ws and take along larger excerpts on the day - say the surrounding page for context.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 16:46
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



OK, cool.

Witness Statement is now filed with court and have emailed Gladstones a copy.

Thanks so much for your help and patience with this everyone, particularly nosferatu1001, Redivi and kommando this last week.

Gonna enjoy the sunshine for a few days then start working on the skeleton argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 06:33
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Skellie really needs to be just a one pager
Also add on your costs schedule - can serarch to find examples - if you think theyve behaved unreasonably, then AFTER you detail your ordinary expenses (half days loss of pay OR LEAVE capped at £95, mileage, parking) THEN you detail your costs under CPR27.14(2)(g) giving a summary of their unreasonable behaviour. Again, you can find examples of what this means by searching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 14:53
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



OK, got my sun tan. cool.gif

Have now made this draft Skeleton Argument.

Please share your thoughts.
(I will number the paragraphs in the final version)

QUOTE
IN THE XXXXXX COURT

CLAIM NO: XXXXXX

Between

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (CLAIMANT)

-AND-

XXXXXXXXXX (DEFENDANT)




Skeleton argument on behalf of XXXXXXXXX (the Defendant)


This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated XXXXXXXX.

The Defendant submits that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceived and flawed, but that the Claimant behaved unreasonably and with unprofessional conduct.


FLAWS

The Claimant has not identified the driver.

The Claimant makes presumptions as to the driver, assumes them as facts, but offers no evidence.

The Claimant has breached 3 major points of its own Code of Practice (Grace Periods, Predatory Tactics and Clear Signage).

The Claimant contradicts themselves in their Witness Statement by declaring a contract was formed when the driver read their sign and decided to park, but later shows photographic evidence proving the incident allowed no time for such a decision to be made.

The Defendant submits that the signage which supposedly forbids stopping is too wordy to be read and understood by a driver without first stopping.

The Defendant submits that signage at the site upon which the Claimant relies is too small and poorly placed to be noticed and read clearly by drivers.

The actual wording of the Claimant's signage uses forbidding language, which in a previous case of the Claimant's, PCM v Bull [2016], District Judge Glen ruled there could be no contract created by such a sign.

It is disputed that the Claimant has authority to operate on behalf of the actual land owner, and merely has a contract with a Facilities Management company.


CONDUCT

When requested by the Defendant, the Claimant has failed to comply with the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

The Claimant has based this case on a two sentence Particulars of Claim which contains no proper details in their reason or basis for the claim. The Defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regards to this lack of information.

The Defendant had no choice but to serve a fully comprehensive and inclusive defence in response to this copy and paste 'robo-claim'.

The Claimant has attempted to use their Witness Statement to try and introduce and advance further legal arguments.

The Claimant has been unable to provide (upon the Defendant's request) strict proof that the £50 filing fee for which they are additionally claiming was both invoiced and paid for.


CONCLUSION


It can be evidenced to the Court that the Claimant failed Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions:

(a) CPR Part 16, Rule 16.4(1)(a)
(b) PD Part 16, Para 7.5
© PD Part 32

And also that the Claimant failed compliance with the IPC Code of Practice:

(a) 15.1 (Grace Periods)
(b) PartB14.1 (Predatory Tactics)
© Schedule 1, Para #4 to #6 (Clear Signage)


The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.



I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.



Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dated xxxxxxxxxxx


This post has been edited by WapChimney: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 14:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 15:56
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Not filing fee. Solicitor Fee for producing and filing the claim . You dispute that x char of the allowed 1080 justifies any charge let alone £50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 12:35
Post #111


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Thanks nosferatu1001, have changed that to:

QUOTE
The Claimant has been unable to provide (upon the Defendant's request) strict proof that the £50 Solicitor Fee for producing and filing the claim was both invoiced and paid for. It is disputed that 388 characters of the allowed 1080 justifies any charge, let alone £50.

Regarding Further Costs, can I claim time as Litigant in Person (at £19 per hour I believe?) for each step I've had to waste my time on?
Eg, I think this is realistically the time I've spent:

Initial reply letter, 1hr
NIP, 0.5hr
Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims Letter, 0.5hr
Defence, 8hr
Witness Statement, 8hr
Skeleton Argument, 3hr

Total 21hrs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 14:55
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You can claim Ordinary costs and, if you can persuade the court, "unreasonable" costs under CPR27.14(2)(g). YOu need to show how they have behaved unreaosnably.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 09:43
Post #113


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



I think continuing to court to persue this despite (never mind all the other arguments) knowing that a claim based on a 60 second stop is unwarranted and against their own code, is pretty unreasonable??? I feel this claim is definitely both spurious and vexatious.

Is it worth adding some such line to my conclusion?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:09
Post #114


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



In order to claim those costs, you HAVE to show they have behaved unreasonably.
This is non-optional!

So yes, of course you justify why youre asking for these additional costs. You summarise ALL areas they have behaved poorly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 13:02
Post #115


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



OK, am bolstering the ending up to this, hoping to show their unreasonableness.

QUOTE
The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable. They have persued this matter despite knowing that a claim based on a 60 second stop is unwarranted and against their own code. The claimant has also shown contempt at each step by flouting procedures and directions despite Law being the Claimant's professional trade.

The Claimant is known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with little to no due diligence done in each case. I believe this claim is truly both spurious and vexatious.

It is argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.


Does it read ok?

Also - do I need to send the Scedule of Costs and Skeleton Argument to Gladstones too?

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 13:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 16:58
Post #116


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, so the6 can't complain.

You then need to give your breakdown of costs for unreasonable behaviour
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 1 May 2018 - 14:25
Post #117


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,635
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Come on WapChimney, people are dying to know what happened?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:11
Post #118


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Sorry for delay... just wanted a bit of time/space from it all.

Well the good news is, I won, although without any costs.

The Judge decided that no contract (of that length) could have been formed in 63 seconds. The evidence of the stay duration was based on the Claimant's own timestamped photos, plus my verbal account of what happened. In his summing up the Judge said the sign was lengthy enough that it would take much longer than 1 minute just to even read it, so there was no contract.

He read the PCM v Bull case during the hearing, and had various back-and-forths with Gladstones over the similarities and differences between it, and also with elements of the Beavis case. But when concluding later, he said that although there were similarities he was not basing his decision on it.

The whole session went on for well over an hour. A lot was taken up with the Judge asking Gladstones about elements of the contract and how it was supposed to work, and another good section of it was both of them asking me what happened on the day (as the details weren't in my witness statement). In hindsight I probably should have named the driver earlier on, been more straightforward in my Witness Statement, and made the case a bit simpler. Maybe then I'd have got my costs. But you live and learn.

One thing I found odd was that the Judge really wasn't interested in the IPC Code. It may have been he felt the 'no contract' aspect was much stronger and what it really fell down to, and so didn't want to spend/waste time on the code.

Anyway, a massive thank you to everyone who helped me on this all along the way, especially: nosferatu1001, emanresu, churchmouse, jlc, ostell, redivi, kommando, and schoolrunmum. No way could I have done this without you all. Drinks all round . smile.gif

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 2 May 2018 - 00:05
Post #119


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,635
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Well done to you, a win is a win!

Perhaps he didn't award costs as you had defended as rk and should really have been open about being the driver, in a case like this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Wed, 2 May 2018 - 07:23
Post #120


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Indeed SchoolRunMum, it really didn't go in my favour, and in retrospect was an unessesary element which hindered an otherwise straightforward case. But hey-ho, lesson learnt, and as you say - at least I won. smile.gif

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Wed, 2 May 2018 - 07:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
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: Tuesday, 17th July 2018 - 02:00
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.