Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 2nd Apr 17, 9:00 PM
    • 38Posts
    • 15Thanks
    raselmahbub
    CPM ticket while parked at the allocated parking
    • #1
    • 2nd Apr 17, 9:00 PM
    CPM ticket while parked at the allocated parking 2nd Apr 17 at 9:00 PM
    I recently moved into a flat. At the time of handover I was not told or given any parking permit to display in my car. The car park is a secured garage (requires a key fob to enter) and the parking bay is also numbered same as my flat. The only thing I was told that there is an allocated parking underground and its marked with your flat's number.

    There are lots of signages around and inside the garage, but I had no reason to stop and read those writings because a) I have rented a flat in this property which comes with a grage b) I am entering into a secured garage with a key which came to me with rental agreement of this property and c) even the bay I was parking, is marked with my flat number.

    Anyway, recently, two months after moving into the property, I received a PCN.

    I phoned my letting agency and emailed them the PCN. They came back and said that, they spoke to CPM and trying to mitigate the issue but since the vehicle is under my name I have to appeal the PCN my self. And also in the mean time they are arranging a permit for me. Moreover the agency lady (property manager) wrote the appeal letter for me.

    I then just printed the letter off and posted it to CPM. They rejected it. I contacted the agency back again and they are now asking me to pay the fine!

    The Appeal Letter:
    To whom this may concern,
    I am writing to you as I am a resident at the property xxxxxxxxxxxxx and I wish to appeal a parking fine I received as I have resided here since 00/00/00 and did not receive a permit upon me moving into the property and since been made aware that a permit is required to park in my allocated space.
    I have now purchased a permit and this should be arriving in the next 3 days as advised by my managing agent that this is what I require to have.
    Please could you advise my position on this as I should not be responsible to pay this fine in my residential parking space solely for my use as an occupier of a flat in the Courtyard.
    The reference number is: XXXXX
    Vehicle registration: XXXXX
    I look forward to hearing from you.

    CPM rejected it on the ground of there are enough notices everywhere in the garage and it was my responsibility to be aware of the parking rules.
    They are also asking me to pay £100 since the appeal was done after the 14 day period.

    Based on the facts above, can someone please advice my available options.
    Many thanks
Page 4
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 17, 11:40 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sounds like dynamite:
    it just says who the MA is and "Number of parking spaces included in this lease - One". that's it.
    The space is allocated within the leases without any 'parking charge' or permit contract applicable. It is likely that all leases are similarly worded if they bought the flats around the same time, IMHO.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 21st Apr 17, 11:52 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 1,122 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Ideally leases need to be read in their entirety to be able to decide categorically, but as C-M says the bit you have extracted is in your favour in that your lease specifies a parking space. The trick is knowing if the parking space is demised itself, or whether a right to park there is demised, or whether the lease gives exclusive use of etc. etc. plus any other lease terms relevant to what the MA can and cannot do.

    Only when read together can all that information allow someone to interpret an official opinion.

    But as said so far so good.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 8th May 17, 9:05 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    OK... I have now received at least 4/5 letters from this DRP people. Same letter, same threat... If you do not pay the amount, Court Action will be taken. They also give an example where someone lost a case in the Court.

    How long it might take before it actually goes to Court? And when it goes to Court, will I be in anyway at fault for not responding to any of those letters?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th May 17, 9:07 PM
    • 16,570 Posts
    • 20,729 Thanks
    Redx
    nothing will come of IGNORING the debt collectors , its a stalemate and not relevant in court , if you are going to deny the debt , you do so to the peincipal, in this case the PPC themselves , as they instigated it

    the PPC has 6 years to issue a court case using MCOL in england and wales

    so 6 years is the answer
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th May 17, 9:18 PM
    • 15,566 Posts
    • 24,302 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Same letter, same threat...
    Same advice - ignore debt collector letters!

    How long it might take before it actually goes to Court?
    Depends if CPM decide to go down that route. Could be tomorrow, could be next month, could be any time in the next 6 years. Could be never. We're into crystal ball territory now.

    But in 2 and a bit years, they've issued over 100,000 tickets and in that time taken around 100 people to court. As my primary school maths teacher would say (after two blackboards full of long division scrawlings), 'That's about one in a thousand, lad'.

    Go figure.

    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/UK_Car_Park_Management.html

    And when it goes to Court, will I be in anyway at fault for not responding to any of those letters?
    We've never seen any court criticise a defendant for not dealing with debt collector drivel, let alone penalise them.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 9th May 17, 10:31 AM
    • 613 Posts
    • 1,122 Thanks
    safarmuk
    UK CPM appear to previously (2015/2016) have been very small players in the SCC, however this year (2017) they have ramped it up a bit (which fits in with the fact they have been with the IPC for a while) but as said above, the %age of tickets pursued to court appears very small.

    The only thing about that statistic is the %age is based on "total tickets" and not "total unpaid tickets" taken to court. However assume only 25% of the 100,000 tickets are unpaid and 100 went to court ... it's still a very small %age.

    Also keep an eye out for an ITV Programme coming out soon related to UK CPM behaviour at a site in Oxfordshire ... you will find it interesting.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 17th Aug 17, 7:00 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    OK Folks,
    I am back again and it looks like I am the unlucky one to receive the court letter.

    Received a court letter today from County Court Business Center after a series of letters
    from Gladstones Solicitors.

    Claimant listed as UKCPM and address of sending documents and payments is Gladstone Solicitors.

    I have 14 days to acknowledge and a total 28 days to defense if acknowledged.

    Total amount 240.86 including legal and court fees

    Would appreciate your advice.
    Last edited by raselmahbub; 17-08-2017 at 7:02 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Aug 17, 11:02 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We will, once you've read the NEWBIES thread post #2 and told us you've done the AOS online as shown there, and then shown us your draft defence, based on the spoon-fed links there. We will help but this sort of post helps no-one, least of all yourself because we can't possibly handle these without the poster showing us their draft defence (not vice versa, we can't help from scratch).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 18th Aug 17, 12:43 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Thanks Coupon-mad,

    I have just completed the AOS online!
    I will start working on the draft and will post here in few days.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 28th Aug 17, 12:55 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    OK I have drafted the initial version of the defense... mostly copy paste. Luckily one of the link in NEWBIES thread is similar to my case.

    I have few important questions though:
    • Point number 2 in the defense below. Specifically where it says Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence . I have received several letters from GS including a letter before claim. I don't know if I am confusing this with something else. Can non compliance with CPR 16 be used in every case? Can I or Should I just avoid the Preliminary section completely?
    • I have not included the driver's identity related points. What do you suggest?
    • How do I mention about all the correspondence I had with the letting agent in regards to not providing me with the parking permit at the first place. OR shall I just ignore it as this may not be relevant to the case at all.
    • Also, do I need to mention anything about the appeal I did which was rejected anyway.

    DEFENSE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


      Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Tesco Car Insurance with 1 named driver permitted to use it. The defendant is also the tenant of the flat no 32 of the residential area with a personal allocated parking space.
    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the parking bay no 32 (which can also be evident by the pictures taken by the UKCPM) in the secured underground residential parking of the property.
    5. There is no agreement with Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non-display of any type of permit. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless the defendant has agreed to variation of the tenancy, which clearly he has not.
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. The picture taken by the UKCPM also proves that the vehicle was parked at the bay number 32. A copy of the lease/tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
    8. Accordingly, it is denied that:

      8.1 There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
      8.2 There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
      8.3 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    9. The car park has a gated entrance which can only be opened by the authorised people and residents of the property with a key fob. The defendant was also given a key fob to provide unrestricted access to the parking area and the allocated parking space. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper and the lawful tenant of the property [address] that the vehicle was parked inside the premise without any restrictions during the time of the alleged incidents.
    10. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied). The only clear large lettering was 'PARKING RESTRICTIONS' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'.
    11. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
    12. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    13. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
    14. The defendant was provided unrestricted access to the parking area by the tenancy agreement and most importantly the security key fob to the gated entrance. Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver. The penalty charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.
    15. In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.
    16. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
    17. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    18. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    Appreciate your thoughtful responses.
    Last edited by raselmahbub; 28-08-2017 at 1:28 AM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 28th Aug 17, 10:09 AM
    • 7,382 Posts
    • 6,426 Thanks
    The Deep
    If the court sides for you, consider asking for CPR27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable behaviour.

    Your AST rights to quiet enjoyment of your property have been interfered with, you have spent time and money dealing with this, and your private data has been passed to debt collectors without proper cause.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 29th Aug 17, 9:59 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Thanks Deep. Do I need to include this in the defense now, or I will get the chance later to ask for this?

    Any other suggestions from other experts? I really need to know if I should include the correspondence I had with the letting agency. And also do mention that I was never issued a parking permit by the agency.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Aug 17, 1:14 AM
    • 869 Posts
    • 983 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No, that's way fine the line. Skeleton argument time. Please use a British English check - defenCe not defenSe.

    You cannot nick de any evidence yet, as the newbies thread clearly explains at post 2, your defenCe is just words. Nothing else.

    You state that notwithstanding the fact you dint require a permit, one was not even provided.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 8:00 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Point number 2 in the defense below. Specifically where it says Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence . I have received several letters from GS including a letter before claim. I don't know if I am confusing this with something else. Can non compliance with CPR 16 be used in every case? Can I or Should I just avoid the Preliminary section completely?
    Why avoid the (very relevant, does apply to all Gladstones claims and can help a Judge to see the issues) preliminary part entirely, when all you really need to do is delete the bit that they ''failed to engage in pre-action correspondence''. Just prune it to suit!

    How do I mention about all the correspondence I had with the letting agent in regards to not providing me with the parking permit at the first place. OR shall I just ignore it as this may not be relevant to the case at all.
    Also, do I need to mention anything about the appeal I did which was rejected anyway.
    All of that goes into the Witness Statement (later) that you write in the first person, about the facts of what happened when. The NEWBIES thread explains, that's nearer the hearing date and it's when you also file your evidence.


    In #7 you need to put right Johnersh's typo, and the cases should be in italics:

    The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.
    And this may have been covered earlier in your thread, but do you actually have ''an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms''?

    What did the advert for the flat rental say about parking spaces?

    What did any section say about parking, in your actual AST?

    I can see you said this (below) but has your own landlord confirmed what his lease says and.or has he/she confirmed in an email that you have been granted full rights to park, flowing from the rights afforded by his leasehold title?

    Interestingly in his agreement, the management company is completely different (most probably this is the company who built this apartment block). And there are no clauses re parking t's and c's. It just only says that the number of parking places included in his lease is one.

    You can add to your defence, as already suggested:

    - that notwithstanding the fact you don't require a permit, one was not even provided.

    - that you have as evidence, a leaseholder's agreement which states "Number of parking spaces included in this lease - One". Therefore, it is confidently argued that a parking space is included in the leases of these flats, as part of the demised property, and there are no clauses allowing variation of the lease to start charging for parking or restricting the bays from use by residents.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 30-08-2017 at 8:02 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 3rd Sep 17, 9:10 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Thank you everyone for all your suggestions.

    @CouponMad and nosferatu1001, I have added point 7 and 8 to include your suggestions with some additional comments from my own. Please have a look.
    Also added some extra points 20-22 to include the additional charge explanation from the claimant.

    On a side note, I found an interesting clause in my tenancy agreement. Just wondering if this in anyway helps me in my case as I could not get hold of the head lease from my landlord and I do not know anything about the agreement (if there was any) between the landlord and the MA or the Parking company.
    My AST agreement says:
    "Head Lease" or “Superior Lease” means the document which sets out the promises the Landlord has made to the Superior Landlord. The promises contained in this Head Lease will bind the Tenant if he has prior knowledge of those promises.

    And certainly I do not have any prior knowledge of any type of parking agreements in the head lease (if there is any)

    DEFENCE

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


      Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Tesco Car Insurance with 1 named driver permitted to use it. The defendant is also the tenant of the flat no 32 of the residential area with a personal allocated parking space.
    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the parking bay no 32 (which can also be evident by the pictures taken by the UKCPM) in the secured underground residential parking of the property.
    5. There is no agreement with Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non-display of any type of permit. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless the defendant has agreed to variation of the tenancy, which clearly he has not.
    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. The picture taken by the UKCPM also proves that the vehicle was parked at the bay number 32. A copy of the lease/tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
    7. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant doesn’t require a permit, one was not even provided by the letting agent. Additionally, it was clearly mentioned in the rental advert of the letting agency that the property comes with an allocate parking space. The defendant didn’t feel the need to stop and read all the small prints of the signage as the big readable letters clearly says ‘PARKING RESTRICTIONS’. And it is submitted that the parking of the defendant’s vehicle was not unauthorised or in any way restricted.
    8. The Defendant has as evidence, a leaseholder's agreement which states "Number of parking spaces included in this lease - One". Therefore, it is confidently argued that a parking space is included in the leases of these flats, as part of the demised property, and there are no clauses allowing variation of the lease to start charging for parking or restricting the bays from use by residents.
    9. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
    10. Accordingly, it is denied that:

      8.1 There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
      8.2 There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
      8.3 The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    11. The car park has a gated entrance which can only be opened by the authorised people and residents of the property with a key fob. The defendant was also given a key fob to provide unrestricted access to the parking area and the allocated parking space. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper and the lawful tenant of the property [address] that the vehicle was parked inside the premise without any restrictions during the time of the alleged incidents.
    12. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied). The only clear large lettering was 'PARKING RESTRICTIONS' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'.
    13. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
    14. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    15. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
    16. The defendant was provided unrestricted access to the parking area by the tenancy agreement and most importantly the security key fob to the gated entrance. Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver. The penalty charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.
    17. In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.
    18. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
    19. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    20. The Claimant failed to explain the basis on which the over and above initial charges are being claimed in different letters starting from £149, £160, £165.86.
    21. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    22. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    23. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    Statement of Truth:
    I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    I am ready to post this as soon as I get a green signal from you guys!
    Many thanks
    Last edited by raselmahbub; 04-09-2017 at 10:14 PM.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 6th Sep 17, 8:30 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    I know everyone is busy here and realistically do not have the time to read that long defence I posted. Still I am asking for your help because without your support it would have been impossible for me to start this fight alone.
    I will run out of time very soon.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 6th Sep 17, 10:31 PM
    • 658 Posts
    • 1,260 Thanks
    Johnersh
    11,12,16,17 delete second sentence of 21, rephrase 22.

    This looks and reads as though bolted together - for example citing Saeed twice (referring to the case name slightly differently). I think you can delete all the paragraphs marked above and rephrase as directed without losing any of the argument you are seeking to make. Keep this focussed.

    I would deny an entitlement to claim the level of costs sought, since DRP work on a "no win no fee" basis and its their letters that generally appear to increase the costs. If you haven't paid, they won't have charged. No secret, that information is available on their website!
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 7th Sep 17, 9:19 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Thanks Jhonersh..
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 11th Sep 17, 10:44 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Quick Update.
    I have emailed the Defence statement to the CCBC today. Also posted the hard copy by post.
    • raselmahbub
    • By raselmahbub 14th Sep 17, 9:42 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    raselmahbub
    Received the acknowledgement letter from the court today.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

15Posts Today

4,362Users online

Martin's Twitter