Contract between Land Owner and Parking Operator

[Scrumpy11]

You also may notice the larger sign which implies the right to park.. this was erected before I moved in to the property in 1995. its larger in size, text and should be the sign legally binding.

Is this credible or am I going off on a tangent.

This is not just about my case, it's for other residents.

[des8]

I just wonder what your tenancy agreement says about parking.
Very often they are at odds with the whole idea of displaying permits.

[Scrumpy11]

You also may notice the larger sign which implies the right to park.. this was erected before I moved in to the property in 1995. its larger in size, text and should be the sign legally binding.

Is this credible or am I going off on a tangent.

This is not just about my case, it's for other residents.

Tenancy agreement does not mention anything to do with parking, although they were supposed to consult us on 'Estate Management', which they never did. Due to amalgamation of HA's they have destroyed records. Here is what I have which the HA have provided as part of their defence.


From Robs advice I have made the contract my main point of concern, my only concern is it does not show the company for the cowboys they are.. But as mentioned, the courts wont care about this

[Scrumpy11]

My initial aim was to take both the operator and the landowner, my landlord to court jointly. The operator is a ltd company with no assets in their name. Hence why I wanted to include my housing, so the onus fell upon them. My main aim is to get rid of the company whom just harass residents and visitors.

For over 19 months they operated from their previous address, which was also the address to which their company was register to. Effectively, they were operating, issuing PCN's from an address in which they did not have permission to use. Im sorry but it does not take 19 months to find new accommodation.

The companies new signs purport the companies address and phone number to be that of ZZPS Ltd. ZZPS has stated they are separate legal entitles whom dont share the same address.

The operator now runs their company from a virtual office and has their mail sent straight to ZZPS. The business centre has been informed this is their head office more lies....

The company ticket the vehicles, then pass our details onto IpaymyPcn (zzps) to deal with appeals and issue of PCN's. You appeal to IPaymypcn, if refused then the ias… If you are unsuccessful then you receive debt letters from ZZPS Ltd, an unlicensed debt collector,

This is one big scam!

[Scrumpy11]

CMS's evidence accepted over mine by the IAS despite my evidence being that of actual pictures of signage on a building or fence. Notice, CMS's evidence is either an 'Image' of a Sign or a sign in a 'Van'. none of these signs were erected in Albert Road carpark. However, were erected in War Lane carpark. This was all explained to the IPC, whose response was it did not matter on signage, its down to the wording. I guess thus us as Rob said down to the Contact between operator and HA, as its not for Albert Rd The third sign 'Private Land' was changed on the 20 March 2019, some 12 days after CMS gave evidence to the IAS to say that was the sign erected.

I really appreciate all the help. Rob has given more a better approach to the situation.

[Scrumpy11]

Here is the history of '55 St Leonards Road West:

Adams signs (08 March 16-23 January 18) - Adams signs are CMS, notice that there is no signage to state CMS are operating from that address
Harpers and Co Funeral Directors (March 18- August 18)
DB Tyres (End of 2018 to -date)

So how can CMS continue using this address as not only the address from where their company was registered to but also, CMS continued to issue PCN's from this address until 25 July 2019.

They stated they had placed a hold on their mail with Royal Mail, yet Royal mail have no knowledge of this. Also, my mail which was sent recorded delivery was returned to me after four or five failed attempts. This has to be illegal as they did not have the owners permission to use their former address.

Maybe Rob is right, I have thrown everything in but this company has been knowingly operating illegally, I just want justice for all those affected.

[Scrumpy11]

This is where a family run business moved after 55 St Leonards Rd West. The same premises that CMS stated in their evidence was a shared premises with no locked door, so they felt unsafe. It looks pretty secure to me. Everywhere that Adams signs moved, CMS moved with them, same family operating these two companies. So why not move their parking companies when their parent company moved? Remember they are still operating a different parking company from 55 St Leonards Road West, despite moving one across (Which I believe was due to my complaint.

These directors have been knowingly operating fraudulently, So who do you report them to

Companies House - Have no powers of investigation
Action Fraud - Are not investigating this company at present.
Trading Standards dont want to know
The IPC have used my complaints to try to bring their member in line with Regulations, dismissing my complaints without further consideration
The DVLA believe the IPC
My HA dont care

So who do you go to?

On the 19 November a parking company which was operated by these directors was compulsory stuck off for not filing accounts, this company was still registered to their previous address of '55 St Leonards Road West' Why did the directors not update the address over when they updated CMS's? Is this even legal?

[Scrumpy11]

I don't know what, if any, assistance you've been given on your claim or whether you did it off your own back but the signage not conforming to regulations, breach of company disclosures are all separate and non-relevant to a GDPR claim.

The main focus of your claim ought to have been that CMS had no lawful or otherwise legitimate reason to obtain your details from the DVLA and then continue to process your data because the extent of their contract is Winifride Court, 2 War Lane and that is not the address at which you parked.

Not sure how you can implicate the housing group if they aren't sharing data with CMS, rather they would be independent controllers. For example, if CMS obtained your details through the DVLA and not the housing group, then they would be a controller in their own right, not joint.

Probably best to wait and see what you've drafted before speculating any further.

Hi Rob, given that I have already submitted my N1 form to the courts and both defendants have filed a defence, How do I request the court to focus on the Contract?

Scrumpy

[R0b]

This all depends on where you are in the stages of proceedings. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if the claim has been allocated to the small claims track - which is usually done afollowing the transfer of the case to a court and the judge has given directions as to time and date of the hearing, then your costs would be limited. If the case has yet to be allocated and you withdraw your claim against the housing group for example, they could be entitlted to claim costs back from you as the normal costs rules apply.

Once the claim has been allocated, your best bet is to create a table and label it 'List of Issues'. You have 4 columns: Issues, Claimant comments, Defendant 1 comments, Defendant 2 comments. You list the issues that you think should be heard by the judge and add brief one or two lines summarising each of the arguments and you do the same for each of the defendants based on their defence. At the end of the document you have 3 signature blocks where each party signs to agree the list of issues.

Then you forward to the housing group and CMS with a covering letter briefly setting out that having considered both defences, you have decided to narrow the issues and focus on those listed in the attached document. Kindly ask them to review and if they agree sign and return which you will forward to the court. Note that you should stress the list of issues is not for the purposes of either defendant to advance their legal arguments as that should be done at the hearing but to assist the judge in understanding at a high level, the position of each of the parties.

It's not the formal way of doing things but probably the easiest. Obviously you can note in your covering letter that if they don't agree or you can't agree on the list of issues then you will send it to the judge anyway and either highlight the issues not agreed i.e. in a separate column, or that you have asked them to consider the issues list but either or one of the defendant's refused to engage and/or cooperate contrary to the overriding objective.

If you need some help then I would suggest you have a stab at drafting it yourself and then post up the draft and we can comment on it.

[Scrumpy11]

Thank you Rob, much appreciated

Scrumpy

[Scrumpy11]

Rob

I did take onboard advice regarding ha... I feel that if I take the HA off the claim then it will all fall on the operator. The company is a LTD company with no assets within their name. Also, my housing would still say that it's nothing to do with them, take it up with the operator, whilst letting them continue to manage the scheme.

I feel a joint claim could give my ha a little kick up the backside, I maybe wrong

[R0b]

That's entirely up to you as it is your claim so you can deal with it in any way you wish.

I just think you are blurring the lines between moral and legal issues and as I said before, the court only looks at the legal issues, however immoral things might seem. Of course you have to experience that in order to learn from it.

Anyway, whatever the way you choose, I've attached an example List of issues should you wish to utilise it.

[Scrumpy11]

Hi Rob,
I really appreciate the all advice and help. Thank you

[Scrumpy11]

Hi all,

Would I be able to use this document as evidence in Court, if needed or requested.

[R0b]

You can use whatever evidence you like, so long as it's not considered confidential, legal privilege or restricted by an order of the court.
Â*