PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Notice of the trial date
sharea
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 20:36
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



I live in the flat which is set within a private property. Some time ago (I think it was in 2013) the property manager has informed that the parking at the property will be controlled by UKPC.
I have received 1 permit + 1 visitor permit however not always I had it visible in my car. I appealed before and stated that this is very frustrating and upsetting as I live at the property, therefore, I am entitled to park there and I believe they should aim for these vehicles which do not belong to any of the people who live there. I was very stressed thinking how on earth you pay your rent, park your car at the property and then you get a ticket of £100? Not £30, £35 but £100?!!Insane! One of the ticket I paid as I couldn't get a response from POPLA so I paid however after I paid POPLA sent a letter saying the parking notice should be cancelled. I contacted UKPC asking for £100 back and sending them POPLA decision. They have never replied despite the fact I have tried several times. Last year I lost the permit somewhere (possibly when left my car at carwash they accidentally bin it). I have sent a letter to UKPC asking to issue a new one but again no response. Since then I got about 7 or more parking notices. I Have never tried to appeal it as I thought if they ignored my previous letters then what else I can do. Additionally, I asked my landlord to contact them about the permit and yet no response from them. And now I am being sent a letter from SCS LAW about the debt owed to UK Parking Control Ltd....The total outstanding is £1,120!!!Maybe it is my fault I have not appealed from these tickets before. I was very upset about being ignored and more importantly getting a ticket for parking at the property I live at. Well...What matters more now is I have no idea what to do. Obviously, I do not want to pay this amount at all. Can anyone help?Is there anything I can do? Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 20:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
sharea
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 14:35
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 08:21) *
Is there any indication that the contract was extended past the 1st year?


This is the contract they have included in their WS

This post has been edited by sharea: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 15:36
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Is that all ?

Two things
12 months from start date: No start date specified therefore no contract
Who signed for the client, name and position

OK 3 what is under those redacted bits? Perhaps a clause not to take court action?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sharea
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



No idea what is under those redacted bits.
The start date is stated: 30 September 2013.
The contract is on 3 pages, couldn't upload the third one.
On the third page, there is only information about 'freedom of information' and the person who signed it, that is
Agreed and signed for and on behalf of the Client, however, there is nothing about this person position within the OM property management.
And a person who signed on behalf of UKPC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 21:56
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So the contract was for 12 months from the start date. Any paperwork to show it was continued? A case has been won on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 00:10
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



As the signature and name of the person purported to have signed the contract on behalf of the Client have been redacted, no-one can tell who has signed it. It could have been any Tom, Dick or Harry.

It is hardly evidence of a contract with anyone from, say, the freeholder on that basis.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 00:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sharea
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:16
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



Eljayjay I have edited that as I thought I cannot display any names
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sharea
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:37
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 22:56) *
So the contract was for 12 months from the start date. Any paperwork to show it was continued? A case has been won on this.

I have attached the second page of the contract previously.
In their WS it is stated that the part redacted is for reason of commercial sensitivity and that the contract continued past the initial period on a rolling basis.
I have not found anything in their T&C about it.
There isn't any other paperwork included. Only their WS, T&C, a copy of the contract, a photo of signage and all parking tickets.

This post has been edited by sharea: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:06
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Instead of using forum space you use tinypics, then you can host all the pics you want

You can of course show names. Its only YOUR DETAILS we dont want to see!

If there is nothing in the contract allowing for a rolling basis, then it ended after 12 months
The point about ostells QUESTION about the redacted zone is to get YOU to raise the question - perhaps there is a clause ther not allowing them to take court action> Theyve redacted it, but not for a good reason!

WHo signed? Do they work for the freeholder?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John001
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:47
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 13 May 2018
Member No.: 97,942



QUOTE (sharea @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 22:44) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 08:08) *
So you are saying that you selected a court in your Directions Questionnaire and you have been ignored?

Unless you have a very good reason it will be very difficult to change the court date.


The home court is one I have selected but the case will be held at the Royal Courts of Justice.

I am going away next week abroad to stay with my parents so they can help out with my babies but I guess it isn't a very good reason for them to change it sad.gif


I have just read through this thread and it seems to me that you aren't coping very well and you are running out of time.
All of the advice is very good but you might need to go to a solicitor to get things moving more quickly, as you dont seem to have your defence sorted, especially as you are going away next week.
Just my opinion but if it was me, I'd rather hand it over to a legal person rather than lose in court and have to pay over £1000 to these rogues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sharea
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 14:24
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



QUOTE (John001 @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 09:47) *
QUOTE (sharea @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 22:44) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 08:08) *
So you are saying that you selected a court in your Directions Questionnaire and you have been ignored?

Unless you have a very good reason it will be very difficult to change the court date.


The home court is one I have selected but the case will be held at the Royal Courts of Justice.

I am going away next week abroad to stay with my parents so they can help out with my babies but I guess it isn't a very good reason for them to change it sad.gif


I have just read through this thread and it seems to me that you aren't coping very well and you are running out of time.
All of the advice is very good but you might need to go to a solicitor to get things moving more quickly, as you dont seem to have your defence sorted, especially as you are going away next week.
Just my opinion but if it was me, I'd rather hand it over to a legal person rather than lose in court and have to pay over £1000 to these rogues.


Do you know anyone in London who could deal with this case?

I am terrified and I am stressing when I think about how I am going to handle it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sharea
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 14:56
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,887



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 09:06) *
Instead of using forum space you use tinypics, then you can host all the pics you want

You can of course show names. Its only YOUR DETAILS we dont want to see!

If there is nothing in the contract allowing for a rolling basis, then it ended after 12 months
The point about ostells QUESTION about the redacted zone is to get YOU to raise the question - perhaps there is a clause ther not allowing them to take court action> Theyve redacted it, but not for a good reason!

WHo signed? Do they work for the freeholder?






Although it doesn't say on that contract I found that the person who signed it was the Property Manager- RMC Division at that time

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02061041

Does it matter if they change the company name?

If Fairhold Yorkshire Ltd was the owner then I found that the company status is 'liquidation'
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01032646 assuming I got the right company




Last point on the contract refer to court actions and the owner of the land and OM Property Management is appointed agent in relation to the Premises

This post has been edited by sharea: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 15:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:13
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Well, done, Sharea!

Looking at the Companies House website shows that you are getting the hang of things.

As FAIRHOLD (YORKSHIRE) LIMITED has been known by that name since January 2006, it must be the company which purportedly entered into the parking contract with the parking company in 2013. Simon Cooper, who signed the parking contract "For and on behalf of the Client" has never been an officer of FAIRHOLD (YORKSHIRE) LIMITED.

OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED changed its name to FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED in April 2015. Simon Cooper has never been an officer of FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED (under its current or any former name) either.

Another company not incorporated until 23 July 2014 (i.e. it did not exist when the parking contract was signed) is now known as OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED. Guess what? Simon Cooper has never been an officer of OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (under its former or current name) either.

It seems to me that the parking company has had its parking contract countersigned by someone - Simon Cooper - purporting himself to be in a position of authority to be able to sign it for an on behalf of the freeholder but who, in fact, is not in such a position.

Put another way, I believe the parking company has failed to provide any evidence of a contract with a person able to authorise it to operate a parking scheme where you live.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:13
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



They have not reserved the right to 'instigate court proceedings' against a registered keeper. Only '.....to recover the Parking Charges due from drivers (or owners)......'


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:34
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 18:13) *
It seems to me that the parking company has had its parking contract countersigned by someone - Simon Cooper - purporting himself to be in a position of authority to be able to sign it for an on behalf of the freeholder but who, in fact, is not in such a position.

What are the "facts" indicating that Simon Cooper is not "a person acting under [the company's] authority, express or implied"?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 15:00
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Churchmouse - Simon Cooper is not listed at Companies House as ever having been an officer of either Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd or OM Property Management Ltd.

sharea - do the particulars of claim state the time of day when the parking charge notice was issued?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 16:48
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Subject to agreeing with what it says and perhaps anything which you consider appropriate to add, if you are still stuck, you could try this as your witness statement...



In the County Court at <location of court>


Claim No. <clam number>


Claimant: <name of parking company>


Defendant: <your name>




Witness statement of <your name>




I, <your name> of <your address>, the Defendant in this case, dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form and deny that any amount is owed to the Claimant. In so doing, I make this my Witness Statement in support of my Defence.


1. The Defendant has lived at her current address since <date>.

2. The development consists of a number of leasehold properties.

3. The Defendant is a sub-tenant of the leasehold owner of one of the properties.

4. The Defendant’s landlord has given the Defendant permission to use the parking space allocated to the landlord under the landlord’s lease.

5. The landlord has not made display of a parking permit a requirement of the Defendant’s use of the allocated parking space.

6. In accordance with the agreement the Defendant and the landlord, the charge for parking in the allocated parking space is included with the Defendant’s rent.

7. The Claimant has provided a minimal amount of information in relation to the cause of its claim, thus making it almost impossible for me to mount a robust defence.

8. The Claimant has provided a copy of a parking contract of dubious validity which, the Claimant purports, gives the landholder’s authority to issue parking charges when vehicles park in an allocated parking space without a valid parking permit being displayed.

9. The parking contract states it is between “Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd c/o OM Property Management Ltd a company registered in England with company number 2061041 whose registered office is at Marlborough House, Wigmore Place, Wigmore Land, Luton, LU2 9EX” as the “Client” and the Claimant.

10. There are a number of issues relating to the parking contract.

11. Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd’s address has never been c/o OM Property Management Ltd.

12. Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd’s address has never been Marlborough House, Wigmore Place, Wigmore Land, Luton, LU2 9EX.

13. The company registration number 2061041 belongs to what was OM Property Management Ltd, not Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd.

14. The contract is signed “For and on behalf of the Client” by Simon Cooper; however, according to Companies House, no Simon Cooper has ever been an officer of Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd or even of OM Property Management Ltd.

15. The parking contract is self-contradictory.

16. Near its beginning, the parking contract purports Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd to be the “’Client’ or ‘you’” and, later, the parking contract states “You agree that the attached site plan and boundary markings are a true and accurate description of the area that you own or occupy and require UKPC to manage”.

17. Later still, however, the parking contract states “Fairhold (Yorskshire) Ltd owns the Premises and you are its appointed agent and you give permission for UKPC to levy the Parking Charges on the Premises”. Clearly, at this point, “you” does not refer to Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd but the parking contract fails to identify the person who has given give “permission for UKPC to levy the parking charges”.

18. Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that this abovementioned unidentified person was Fairhold (Yorskshire) Ltd’s appointed agent or had any power to “permission for UKPC to levy the parking charges”.

19. Prior both to entering into any contract with anyone, the Claimant should have heeded Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which is headed “Implied term about care and skill” and states that “In a relevant contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill”.

20. The Claimant has, however, failed to provide evidence of its use of “reasonable care and skill”. For example, the Claimant has provided no evidence that Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd had reserved any rights over the parking spaces [and, without such reserved rights, Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd’s agreement to the contract would have run contrary to the principle of non-derogation of grant implied in all leases].

21. The Start Date of the parking contract is stated to be 30 September 2013 and the Initial Period is stated to be “12 months beginning on the Start Date”, but there is nothing to support any extension beyond the Initial Period.

22. Although Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows, in certain circumstances, parking operators to recover unpaid parking charges from the keepers of vehicles, the parking contract restricts the Claimant’s powers to recover charges from “drivers (and owners) who park…” only.

23. According to the Companies House website, Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd is now in a state of liquidation, it is late filing its confirmation statement, its accounts and its annual return. For all practical purposes, Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd is almost certainly defunct.

24. The parking contract is and always has been, at best, of extremely dubious validity.

25. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the parking contract’s validity and, given that the remaining three officers of Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd were not officers of the company at the time when the parking contract was signed, it is unlikely that the Claimant could now provide any such evidence.

26. Given that the leases have primacy of contract over any parking contract between the former freeholder and the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to explain how the so-called parking contract could have any validity.

27. For example, if the Claimant asserts that its parking contract was introduced under any rules or regulations made in accordance with the leases’ provisions, the Claimant has not provided a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them or, indeed, even an unsigned copy.

28. If any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with the leases’ provisions, the Claimant has not provided a note of the specific provisions in the leases in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made.

29. If the Claimant maintains that its parking scheme has been introduced in accordance with the leases, the Claimant has failed to establish that the leases allow it to enforce their terms under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

30. It is the Defendant’s belief that the leases grant individual parking rights for the individual parking spaces to individual leaseholders and that, in the event of a ‘ticketing and charging’ parking scheme being introduced, the Claimant would have needed to agree individual parking contracts with those individuals (as opposed to the freeholder who had ceded those parking rights).

31. The Claimant has, however, affixed a number of parking charge notices to a vehicle registered in the Defendant’s name when it has been parked in the allocated parking space without providing any real justification for its behaviour.

32. The Claimant maintains that it has the right to use the allocated parking space for its business purposes and that it can charge for parking if the parked vehicle does not display a parking permit.

33. The Claimant does, however, contradict its purported right in its witness statement where it states that “It is denied that the parking spaces form part of the 'common access ways and facilities'”.

34. By doing so, in effect, the Claimant admits that the rights to use the parking spaces have been granted to the leaseholders through their leases.

35. The Claimant is not a party to the leases and, that being so, the Claimant derives no right to use the parking spaces under the leases.

36. As the Defendant’s landlord has never agreed to transfer the right to use the allocated parking space to the Claimant or even to share that right with the Claimant, the Claimant has no right to use the allocated parking space for its business purposes and no right whatsoever to charge for parking in the space.

37. Even if the Defendant had been in breach of her tenancy agreement by failing to display a parking permit, as the landlord has not engaged the Claimant to monitor the landlord’s allocated parking space, the Defendant would be accountable for her actions to the landlord, not the Claimant. The landlord’s remedy for the breach would have been to seek damages from the Defendant and/or an injunction ordering the Defendant to display the permit in future.

38. Such a breach would not have conferred any right on the Claimant.

39. The so-called parking contract demands that “a uniformed warden” will issue parking charges but the Claimant has provided no evidence that its operative was wearing a uniform when affixing parking charge notices to the vehicle.

40. The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s claim is fatally flawed and, in the event that the Claimant disagrees, I put the Claimant to strict proof of its right to claim a parking charge from me.

I, <your name>, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signature: <your signature>

Date: <date signed>
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 02:23
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 16:00) *
Churchmouse - Simon Cooper is not listed at Companies House as ever having been an officer of either Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd or OM Property Management Ltd.

Yes, and? Does he have to be an officer or director of the company in order to be "a person acting under [the company's] authority, express or implied"?

(The answer is no.)

Moreover, we have seen no evidence that Simon Cooper does not have the company's express authority: AFAIK, no one has asked the company if Simon Cooper had the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company in 2013 (possibly because it would be a fruitless endeavour). Most medium- to large-size organisations maintain "signing authority" lists that are updated when individuals join, leave or are promoted within the company. But such lists are mainly used internally to monitor and control employees' potentially liability creating actions; anyone dealing with the company on a third-party basis would benefit from a legal presumption that a person reasonably appearing to have the authority to sign a contract on behalf of a company does have such authority. UKPC would be the beneficiary of that presumption, presumably, even if Mr Cooper actually lacked express authority to sign the agreement.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 14:56
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Churchmouse

Surely, Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 applies...

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
Churchmouse
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 17:47
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



No. You will find the language I quoted in Section 43 of the same instrument. In practice, s.44 is seldom used, unless there is a specific legal reason why a document must be executed "by" a company, rather than "on behalf of" a company. Large companies execute thousands of agreements every day, and the formalities in s.44 are simply impractical in most situations.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 18:19
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



What follows is an extract from the transcription of a judgement in another case. The words are those of a District Judge. They are not mine.

"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."

It really is a pity that your comments are not more constructive. Perhaps the next time an OP is having difficulty putting together a letter, a defence, or a witness statement, you could draft something for them.

I am sure we would all like to benefit from some practical application of your knowledge.


This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 18:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:05
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here