COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM (UKCPM, Gladstones)

The Claimant’s Witness Statement is very hard to follow. It refers to a single parking in charge in #3, #4, #6, #7 and #8. In #3, the statement lists three separate PCNs. I’ll process as if ‘the charge’ in #3, #4, #6, #7, #8 is the Claimant’s claim for each separate charge in #3 - but this is unclear.
As a resident of ********, the Lease of Part Schedule Part 1. 11. grants me the permission to park a private vehicle in any free parking space.
“[The lessor grants the lessee] The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated”.
lease of part, Schedule Part 1 11. 
witness statement (WS) appendix b (p. 28)

The Claimant refers to the sign on the land as ‘i.e. the Contract’, but I assert that the signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease of Part as found on appeal in CS038 Jopson vs Homeguard [2016] 9FG0A9E.
In that case, Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”
CS038 Jopson vs Homeguard ¶18. (WS Appendix E p.56)

Also on the primacy of contract in this case, in Pace Recovery vs Mr N[2016] C6GF14F0, District Judge Coonan ruled:
“I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.”
Pace Recovery vs Mr N[2016] C6GF14F0 ¶1, (WS Appendix F, P. 63)


My assertion is that the facts of this case are identical to the fact of Pace Recovery vs Mr N [2016].

Referencing Pace Recovery vs Mr N[2016] C6GF14F0, In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7 the Judge found that despite Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 ‘not in any event binding him’:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract, and it seems to me that the same principle applies here”
Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7 ¶13., (Ws Appendix G, p. 72)

The following were addressed in the Witness Statement, but may be better placed here:
RE: “The Defendant was aware of the terms when they obtained the permit”. (#4): The permit was not obtained by request (WS #11.), and the anonymous “Resident / Occupier” letter from UK Car Park Management Ltd (WS Appendix D) does not establish the terms of the permit.
RE: “The residents’ indicated their acceptance of this service by displaying a valid permit… in view of this they have accepted the charge (sic.)”:
The letter introducing the service (WS Appendix D) states in no part that displaying a permit accepts any terms of a contract.
The letter does not mention that the terms will provided on signage
The letter does not mention any charges whatsoever, except a £5.00 charge for a replacement permit upon request.
The letter does state, however:
“The service will operate to alleviate the ongoing problems with unauthorised parking”
Letter from UK CPM Ltd, (WS Appendix D, P47)

This letter is dated 8th February 2013, prior to the service commencing on February 25th 2013. Given that the letter already accepts that there is ‘unauthorised’ (and thus, ‘authorised’) parking occurring prior to the start of their service. The Claimant is acknowledging residency as the primary (and thus, ultimate) authorisation for parking on the land.

In any case, this letter and its associated permit do not take primacy over the signed Lease between the Lessor and Lessee, giving the Lessee the right to park on the land.
RE: “The Defendant has not provide any evidence to support their alleged right to park” (#6):
The Claimant addressed the Defendant exclusively at their address on ********, so was well aware of the residency, and the initial defence statement included the relevant portion from the lease. As a lay-defendant in this claim, this appears to be disingenuous.
cFor clarity, however, the Witness Statement includes:
the Driving License of the defendant as proof of residence ( WS Appendix A) - (this is, of course, where the Claimant got the Defendant’s address);
The Land Registry Title Information as proof of ownership by [**********], husband of the Defendant (WS Appendix C);
The Lease of Part relating to ********* establishing right to park and right of access. (Appendix ;
The Legal Plan Plot of the land designating the areas included in right of access (not contended by the Claimant, but included for completeness) (WS Appendix H)
Given the relevant cases on the primacy of the lease, and the addressing of the Claimants additional arguments here, it is asserted that this Claim should be dismissed.

Johnersh wrote: »

What time are you on and in which Court?