Printfriendly

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Test Cases scheduled for Overstone Court - residential parking

Link v ML C1GF86Q0
Link v DL C9GF03Q9

This concerns two brothers, ML and DL, who were tenants at Overstone Court, Cardiff. They had enjoyed quiet enjoyment of their property for many years, which came with a parking space, and also had an arrangement with another resident to use their parking space.

Then in January 2016 everything changed. The management company brought in Link Parking to manage parking on the estate, which they did via a permit scheme. The brothers asked Link multiple times for extra permits for their space. This is a perfectly reasonable request. They could have a permit for each person on the planet if they wished - after all, only one car at a time can park in their space, and as land occupier they should be able to manage the space as they wish (which would include not needing to display a permit in the first place).

Link parking refused. They gave no reasons, but it is obvious to the Prankster that the greed of Links owner, Martin Gardener was a big reason for this - after all, he cannot issue so many charges if residents have enough permits. Martin Gardener has also in the past refused to use technology which would benefit the motorist but reduce the charges he can issue.

A large number of tickets were issued to the two brothers - over 40. Gladstone Solicitors issued 13 claims, totalling over £10k. One of these were heard last week, and the other this week.

The Prankster only heard of these at the last minute, as a result of a similar case regarding Overstone Park where he also assisted. He therefore helped draft two orders to combine all the cases into one hearing; for Gladstones to file proper particulars of claim; and then for a new defence to be prepared. The Prankster was otherwise engaged, but John Wilkie was available...

Hearing 1 DJ Wynn-Davies

John Wilke attended Cardiff County Court as lay representative for DL, where he asked for directions and consolidation of four cases, and got most of what was asked for.

The Defendant's argument was that, rather than a number of claims, there should be a single hearing for a consolidated claim. It was argued that this dealt with everything in one fell swoop, meant that Link only needed to attend once, only incurred one hearing fee, one Solciitors Fee etc.

Link argued that this was entirely wrong, contrary to the Overriding Objectives and got firmly slapped down.

After 3/4 hour of arguments, DL got about 60% of what he wanted, including the right to file a new defence, and a consolidated hearing which, it was suggested, will be a full day and may need Hizonner to deal with.

An independent observer reported to The Prankster that Martin Gardener's face turned puce when he heard John Wilkie was appearing, and grew more and more purple as the hearing went on.

Hearing 2 DDJ Thomas

John Wilke attended Cardiff County Court as lay representative for ML, where he asked for similar directions to the previous week.

Without wasting too much time, Link agreed to the principle of joining the claims together, but insisted that today's claim ought to be heard.

DDJ Thomas made it clear that without the lease and tenancy (not submitted by Link) then he couldn't hear the case today, and an adjournment and joinder was necessary in the interest of justice,
especially considering Jopson & Homeguard, and given the judgment in Link v Ms P.

He also argued that both ML and DL claims ought to be heard together - which the judge agreed to.

The judge commended John Wilkie for his assistance and the quality of his submissions.

Link applied for "wasted costs". An observer reported that they got the closest that was ever heard from a Judge to being told to "f*** off"

Prankster Note

The Directions today parallel the directions last week, and are very much in favour of the defendants. Additionally, as the claims are now joined, they can be treated as a "test case" for this site, Overstone Court in Cardiff. It is likely this will be dealt with by a Circuit Judge.

So "parking terrorists" can also have test cases.

Link has been offered the opportunity to drop hands, and we will have to wait and see.

Any other residents who are currently being claimed against by Link should refer the judge to these test cases and ask that their case be stayed until.

Any resident who has already paid monies to Link should wait until the result of the test case. Should Link lose then they would have up to 6 years to file a claim against Link for their money back and up to £750 per ticket for data protection breaches.

The brothers have now moved out of Overstone Court, which was due in no little part to the harassment by Link.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

7 comments:

  1. What was the outcome of the cases that had been heard previously?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The previous DDJ though that Beavis meant all parking charges were valid.

      Delete
    2. So is the chap going to appeal them, or will Link be still expecting to be paid them?

      Delete
  2. Prankster...how can i contact you personally? I have a consolidated trial on 6th Feb that i'd like to discuss. cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. email me at prankster@parking-prankster.com

      Delete
  3. I have heard the latest Overstone Court hearing was adjourned today in Cardiff.

    Any updates as to why, PP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was due to a pocedural issue thew court had not dealt with by the time of the hearing. I think this is now the 3rd or 4th time this has occurred in these relates cases, so 3-4 wasted hearings, many hours of wasted judge time, many hours of wasted defendant and claimant time. Cardiff need to get their act together.

      Delete