Parking ticket in own bay No Permit - appeal rejected

This is what i have found - this was all copied and pasted

____________________

1) It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2) The Particulars of the Claim submitted to the Defendant provide no statement to the nature of the claim and the Defendant does not believe these particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a comprehensive and conclusive defence.

3) The Defendant has prepared the defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an allocated leasehold residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.

4) The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the capacity to offer parking.

a) The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.

b) Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of £139.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

5) The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur action).

6) The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

a) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.

7) The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from the ‘Parking Rules’ on the signage. It is a forbidding sign that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.

8) The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

a) The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

9) In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well-known and well established principle that ‘a grantor shall not derogate from his grant’

10) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

a) In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest […..] in enforcement of the primary obligation’

b) There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.

11) The exact question regarding terms in a lease was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.

a) The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.

12) The Defendant also relies upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016, where District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, having found that a third party parking firm cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

13) The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred solicitors costs of £50 to prepare the claim. The Defendant refers the Court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.

14) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

15) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

16) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

17) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

18) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

---

is this what i need to do? is this the reply to Gladstone solicitors or to the county court if there is a claim?

im lost im very Green when it comes to writinG

Dear Sir

Ref : xxx

I have received your Letter Before County Court Claim dated XXth XXXXXXX 2016.

I deny any debt to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd

The tenancy agreement gives Mr [A. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”, breach of Quiet enjoyment.

Please tell me who owns the car park as I wish to send them a copy of this letter.

You cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter. Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7)
Please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to keeper. When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully

Mr A Ros


is this ok, for the first letter? is this something i should send by post or can it be by email??

or is it better to send by post?

thanks for reply if you think so i will wait and see what other say