IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Being taken to court
albo_uk
Posts: 47 Forumite
Hi guys
I received the claim yesterday
The parking firm its called Private Parking Solutions Ltd and they have instructed Gladstones solicitors to persue the claim
According to them car was parked in a private car park where only residents are allowed to park via applying for a permit through their letting agent
The thing is that this happened in December 2015 while i was away on holiday and also my car was writen off due to an accident before (around Novevember)
I guess thats what happened someone who i use to live with must have drove there and never told me about it and hid all the correspondence from Private parking solutions and Gladstone solicitors
Car was a right off but still drivable if you know what i mean
Any more info please let me know and i will be glad To provide
Thank you in advance
I received the claim yesterday
The parking firm its called Private Parking Solutions Ltd and they have instructed Gladstones solicitors to persue the claim
According to them car was parked in a private car park where only residents are allowed to park via applying for a permit through their letting agent
The thing is that this happened in December 2015 while i was away on holiday and also my car was writen off due to an accident before (around Novevember)
I guess thats what happened someone who i use to live with must have drove there and never told me about it and hid all the correspondence from Private parking solutions and Gladstone solicitors
Car was a right off but still drivable if you know what i mean
Any more info please let me know and i will be glad To provide
Thank you in advance
0
Comments
-
Parallel thread on PePiPoo to save going through the same preliminaries here with the OP.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=112197Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Please can someone have a look at this and add or remove anything
Introduction
1. I am .........., the defendant in this matter.
2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this
defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a BMW, registered
number .......
5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of
the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the
driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at ..............
Rebuttal of Claim
7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking
Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. That I am liable for the purported debt.
8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any
debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply
with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and
vexatious.
9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.
My Defence
10. My defence will rely principally upon the following points:
11. That the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it
clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute
an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.
12. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test
of good faith.
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness
requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or
traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the
customer.”
13. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions
as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of
the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled
zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under
The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the
law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same
way.
2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code
14. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a
contact and which met the specifications above.
15. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply
us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the
meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you
as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement
and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator
to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in
question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you
intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their
own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
16. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any
event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a
calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum
sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.
17. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when
compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if
paid within 14 days.
18. In the alternative, the attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper,
where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this
case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c;
8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).
19. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.
20. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller
claim.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed ______________________
Dated 11-03-20170 -
I would remove this as all it is doing is repeating the other side's argument, not needed:Purported Basis of Claim
6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and
correspondence, it appears to be the claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on 15th of January 2015.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking
Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.
and on pepipoo you said this was a legit visitor to a resident who has primacy of contract (as tenant or leaseholder). So, presumably, can it be said that the visitor was relying on the invitation of the resident?
You need to cite the Jopson case, Link v Parkinson, Pace v Mr N, read them here (you do not yet attach these as evidence but you will later):
http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html
http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
the situation being discussed here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html
This thread shows a defence including those arguments and cases:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72051367#post72051367
HTHPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
In what paragraph can do i add all this please
I was not the driver as at the time when the parking event occurred i was out of the country
I have my booking invoice for this ( where do i submit that evidence please)
My car was write off prior to the parking event occoured
i was not the driver and do not know who the driver was as several people had access to the car and keys
Also where can i add photos of the signage so the judge can see them how stupid they look
thanks0 -
You do not submit evidence of any kind with your defence. This is done with your WS nearer the hearing date (usually 2 weeks before).
I would not mention the car being a write off. It's only worth mentioning the 'not the driver' stuff if they have not complied with pofa.... I'm not certain but I thought PPS were pofa compliant.0 -
You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread as you seem to need to read bargepole's explanation again of what happens when.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
According to them car was parked in a private car park where only residents are allowed to park via applying for a permit through their letting agent
Since when do letting agents issue permits to leaseholders?
I have been reading this thread on ppp. As late as yesterday the OP had still not informed them of the contents of the lease.
He/she needs to get a handle on this. No pain no gain.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
You should deny being the driver in your defence. The ins and outs of why you cannot have been the driver will go into your Witness Statement which comes later (and, yes, exhibit to that the proof you were out of the country).
Even if the NtK was POFA compliant, the fact that you were clearly not driving may well make the judge a tiny bit sorry for you and this may make a difference to which way he leans.
You cannot both say that you don't know who was driving, and then assert that they were a legitimate visitor and rely on lease/tenancy primacy arguments. So, as the Deep says, you need to get a grip on your facts and what case you are running.
If you are going to say you know who the driver was and that they were a legitimate visitor, then the driver is going to have to do a statement to confirm that, or the person they were visiting must. And again repeating the Deep, you need to get hold of a copy of the tenancy to show it says nothing about permits.
If you are going to say you don't know who the driver was then I don't see how this defence can be relied upon: you are then left with POFA (was the NtK compliant?) and contractual arguments (essentially poor signage, and badly worded signage - you may also have the illegality argument that there was no planning permission for the signs and that consumer laws have been breached about unfair contract terms and distance contracts - have a look at my thread which links you to a very long Skeleton Argument which contains all the ins and outs of this argument)Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0 -
Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »You should deny being the driver in your defence. The ins and outs of why you cannot have been the driver will go into your Witness Statement which comes later (and, yes, exhibit to that the proof you were out of the country).
Even if the NtK was POFA compliant, the fact that you were clearly not driving may well make the judge a tiny bit sorry for you and this may make a difference to which way he leans.
You cannot both say that you don't know who was driving, and then assert that they were a legitimate visitor and rely on lease/tenancy primacy arguments. So, as the Deep says, you need to get a grip on your facts and what case you are running.
If you are going to say you know who the driver was and that they were a legitimate visitor, then the driver is going to have to do a statement to confirm that, or the person they were visiting must. And again repeating the Deep, you need to get hold of a copy of the tenancy to show it says nothing about permits.
If you are going to say you don't know who the driver was then I don't see how this defence can be relied upon: you are then left with POFA (was the NtK compliant?) and contractual arguments (essentially poor signage, and badly worded signage - you may also have the illegality argument that there was no planning permission for the signs and that consumer laws have been breached about unfair contract terms and distance contracts - have a look at my thread which links you to a very long Skeleton Argument which contains all the ins and outs of this argument)
Sorry for the confusion there guys, like i stated before i live in a shared house with "friends" so when i went abroad all of them had access to the car keys.
I do not know who the driver was as they all denying having used my car
Also i do not know why they did park there whether they were visiting someone or just parked there thinking its free it remains a mystery so that's why I can't get a copy of their tenancy agreement
Can someone please advise what shall i do as i want to submit my defense tonight
thank you very much for all your help0 -
Can someone please advise what shall i do as i want to submit my defense tonight
Loadsofchildren123 already told you, no need to go into it yet:You should deny being the driver in your defence. The ins and outs of why you cannot have been the driver will go into your Witness Statement which comes later
Also this is already covered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. No need for evidence yet, it isn't the time.
And don't submit the defence on MCOL. Do it by a PDF defence attached to an email with the claim number and the word 'DEFENCE' in the subject line, of course. Make sure it is attached.
Did you include the vital info as shown here:You need to cite the Jopson case, Link v Parkinson, Pace v Mr N, read them here (you do not yet attach these as evidence but you will later):
http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html
http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
the situation being discussed here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html
This thread shows a defence including those arguments and cases:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72051367#post72051367PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards