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
    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 7th Apr 17, 3:48 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 2Thanks
    im_bigel
    Loading/Unloading outside my property
    • #1
    • 7th Apr 17, 3:48 PM
    Loading/Unloading outside my property 7th Apr 17 at 3:48 PM
    Hi guys,
    really new to this so would very much appreciate some help. I've had a look around the forum for some advice but have been unable to find anything that matches my case.

    Back in December Purchased a new TV and went grocery shopping before returning home. I live in a flat so parked directly outside of the main communual door and began to unload both the TV and grocery shopping. I locked my car and began to take items inside. on the 2nd run I encountered a Traffic warden who had began to issue a parking charge. I explained that i was simply unloading and would move my vehicle to my designated bay as soon as i had taken the stuff inside. On returning to my car the scumbag had issued me with a parking charge! When i confronted him he went onto say that there was no loading or unloading permitted. I went on to contest the parking charge directly with the company in this case which is Parking and Property Management Ltd.

    Now i must say at this stage I did not read any forums or look for advice at this stage, I simply filled out the form online with the truth and stated that i believed the charge to be unjust and unfair. The operator failed to acknowledge receipt and gave no respone whatsoever.
    Foward to March 25th and I recieved a letter before the claim from Gladstones Solicitors. The letter stated i had 14 days to respond and again i submitted my case to Gladstones via email and again recieved no response.

    Today I have recieved a County Court claim Dated the 5th March:
    Breaching the terms of parking on the land. The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle. AND the claimant claims £160 for parking charges/ Damages and indemnity costs plus interest of £2.18. Amount claimed £162.18 court fee:£25 legal representatives cost : £50 total £237.18.

    The original fine was for £100, £60 if paid early so no idea where £160 came from? secondly i have a designated bay and also display a valid permit i was simply unloading a 40inch tv directly outside of my door as my bay is some distance away.

    Im sorry if I have gone on and on but any input and advice would be greatly appreciated.

    thanks in advance
Page 1
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 7th Apr 17, 4:13 PM
    • 2,755 Posts
    • 2,774 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 17, 4:13 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 17, 4:13 PM
    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

    Take a look at ​CS038 Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal (Tenancy trumps signage).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 7th Apr 17, 4:40 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 17, 4:40 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 17, 4:40 PM
    Take a look at ​CS038 Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal (Tenancy trumps signage).[/QUOTE]
    Thanks for your response DoaM do you think i should focus on this case for my defence statement?
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 7th Apr 17, 9:05 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 17, 9:05 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 17, 9:05 PM
    "Loading or unloading" is not parking. This is clear in Jopson -v- Homeguard and other case-law.

    The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended (RTRA) does not define "parking" so the Oxford English Dictionary definition is as good as any. (Look it up in a library.) The OED is what judges use to find a definition of English words in common usage.

    It should also be noted that both the RTRA and the Highway Code talk about "parking", "waiting", "loading or unloading" and "setting down or picking up passengers", each as a separate activity, with the term "stopping" encompassing all of them. It is possible that "waiting" could be regarded as "parking" as they are frequently mentioned in the same breath (e.g. "parking or waiting" is common in the RTRA). However, "loading or unloading" and "setting down or picking up passengers" are clearly different from parking or waiting.

    PPCs can only lawfully obtain your personal details from DVLA "to seek recovery of unpaid parking charges." Since loading or unloading isn't parking, not only should this be a winning defence argument but it also means that the PPC has obtained your personal details without reasonable cause (unless you unwisely gave the PPC your details). This is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, which is both a crime and a civil matter.

    More details about the Data Protection Act can be found in this thread:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Apr 17, 9:07 PM
    • 48,322 Posts
    • 61,787 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 17, 9:07 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 17, 9:07 PM
    I encountered a Traffic warden
    No, you didn't.

    Today I have recieved a County Court claim Dated the 5th March:
    Do you mean 5th April?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 16th Apr 17, 1:38 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:38 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:38 PM
    hi guys thanks for all your responses and sorry its taken me so long to respond.
    I did indeed mean the 5th April. I have read through the forum and attempted to write a defence statement would it be ok to post here for some advice.
    Thanks
    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    Witness Staement
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    'Dear Sirs' XXXXXXXX UKPC

    The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

    I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any sum at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Statement of Defence as already filed.

    The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, and I rely on that document as a true account. A copy follows this Witness Statement.

    I am an unrepresented consumer who has no experience of representing myself in the County Court.

    I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxx. I also assert that I was the registered keeper of that vehicle on the date 29/12/2016. I can also confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle.

    1 . I stopped outside the entrance of my flat to unload a 40 inch television and 8 bags of grocery shopping. (this cannot reasonably be carried from my legal parking spot)
    2 . My lease imposes no Loading /unloading conditions although a permit for parking is displayed purely for the convenience of the claimant's parking attendant.

    3 . No parking has taken place therefore no Parking charge can be issued.

    (A) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Highway Code talk about "parking","waiting", "loading or unloading" and "setting down or picking up passengers", each as a separate activity. "Loading and unloading" or "setting down or picking up passengers" are clearly different from parking or waiting.
    (B) Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’. (EXHIBIT ?)
    (C) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.
    (D) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

    (E) In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).
    (F) I would also like to refer to case Bulstrode v Lambert (1953) which discusses the right to loading and unloading;

    ''After considering the facts at the time of the grant, Mr Justice Upjohn ruled that an ancillary right to stop, load and unload may be implied into the express grant of a right of way where such a right is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the right of way.''
    4 If it can be proven that "parking" has occurred The Claimant did not comply with the IPC code of practice (Part B 15.1), regarding grace periods: “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.” 10 mins is generally accepted to be the minimum amount of time to read and understand a contract and make a decision to park or not to park.

    5 . Signage.
    The claimants signs do not mention anything regarding "loading" or "unloading" so it is impossible for any contract to be established. The claimants signs only mention "parking" and at no time was my vehicle "parked" otherwise than in accordance with.

    6 . I contend that the Claimant has no authority to bring a claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

    (A) The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was unloading, nor does he have any interest in the land. It, therefore lacks the capacity to take away my right to access property for the intention of unloading .

    (B) The Claimant doesn't have a 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.

    (C) Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of £160.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 2008.

    7 . The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

    (A) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question.

    (B) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;

    (C) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances as I was simply stopped for temporary loading/unloading and no loss or damage to the Claimant arose from this.

    (D) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.

    (E) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

    (F) Furthermore, Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £100 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied). The Particulars of Claim include an extra £60 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as parking charges plus interest.
    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. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    9 . As per Paragraphs 8-11 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, even though the Defendant disputed the claim, the Defendant invited the Claimant to enter some form of ADR to settle the dispute. The Claimant remained silent and ignored all approaches.

    (A) Furthermore the claimants solicitors have also chosen to ignore any correspondence and began court proceedings without allowing the allocated time for a response. Following the initial parking charge notice and the reminder letter, the next letter I received was on the 25th March, a generic letter before claim from Gladstones . I replied on the 5th April, within their 14 day request, as seen in Exhibit (?). My response consisted of an email outlining my defense but again, no response was received.

    10 . Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim

    (A) I received County Court papers on the 7th April where within their particulars of claim it cited “parking charges”, as seen in Exhibit (?).
    I am unsure what reasons Parking and Property Management LTD are using for taking the case to court as they have provided very limited particulars of claim (PoC). I had received letters, as seen in Exhibit(?) , which stated reasons for the charge as parking in no parking area’ but I have since appealed this reason in that I was stopped, not parked as seen in Exhibit(?).

    (B) It is unknown if anything that I had previously stated within Exhibit(?) changed their reasons that made them find it deemable to raise this case to court as I did not receive a response and there is no detail offered of what “parking charges” entails within the PoC. The PoC does not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.1 and 1.4 which can be found in Exhibit(?) . This therefore means that the Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

    13. Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim “RoboClaim”

    The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, and unfair on unrepresented consumers. 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 in accordance with CPR 1.1 2(a) “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”.

    As an unrepresented consumer I am immediately at a disadvantage compared to trained solicitor in the matter and this is aggravated by Gladstones Solictors whom are not following CPR 16.4 1(a) as I have not received a detailed PoC to be able to properly formulate a concentrated argument.

    (A) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
    (B) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

    The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
    course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Apr 17, 2:40 PM
    • 6,700 Posts
    • 5,700 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 17, 2:40 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 17, 2:40 PM
    They are certainly pushing their luck here, if this is not interfering with your "quiet enjoyment" of your property I do not know what is.

    Your lease/AST must surely mention your rights to come and go over communal property, to access your accommodation.

    It appears that neither the PPC nor the MA are acting in the best interests of the residents here and, imo, you should counterclaim against both for the inconvenience they have caused you, it is time this harassment of landlords and their tenants was stamped on.

    Read this

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/ukpc-lose-residential-case-charge-not.html
    Last edited by The Deep; 16-04-2017 at 2:58 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Apr 17, 6:40 PM
    • 13,626 Posts
    • 21,373 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 17, 6:40 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 17, 6:40 PM
    This case is crying out for a DPA-related counterclaim which will mean that neither Gladstones nor the PPC will be able to discontinue the action shortly before the hearing date - after giving the OP hours and hours of work in order just to avoid a default judgment against him.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 16-04-2017 at 9:21 PM.
    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.
    • Dot2101
    • By Dot2101 16th Apr 17, 6:47 PM
    • 60 Posts
    • 67 Thanks
    Dot2101
    I have just won a case for a loading/unloading situation, all they could prove was 2 minutes
    I used Jopson as my first arguement in court which worked well
    I also used ibbotsen which I recommend adding in, this is about the parking company mitigating losses to the landowner- i think it's on page 8 of the transcript there's a part where the judge says the person issuing the "ticket" could have advised the driver to move to vehicle or if they didn't want to move they would have to charge them £80. In my case my point was there was someone in the car so they could have alerted the driver to what would happen, in your case perhaps you could argue that you had spoken to them to explain what you were doing and they could have taken this opportunity to explain this to you but instead they proceeded in issuing a fine. I said that this was predatory tactics (something about this in the IPC code of practice ) and the judge cited this as one of the reasons why we won the case
    Hope this helps
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Apr 17, 6:51 PM
    • 13,626 Posts
    • 21,373 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Here's a link to the Ibbotson case.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)
    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.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 16th Apr 17, 7:17 PM
    • 3,654 Posts
    • 5,178 Thanks
    Half_way
    Congratulations on beating these parasites.
    You now need to get a little pro-active, the issue is that if you let things lie then you may be stung again, or a friend relative or visitor of yours could be on the receiving end of these parasites.

    Please take a read of the following, and come back with your thoughts, you need to get rid of these parasites and take action against the management agents - courtesy of Lynzer on pepipoo
    Info: http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/residential-parking.pdf
    Templates/examples http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/Templates.pdf
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 16th Apr 17, 9:18 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    Hi guys I've just taken a look at my lease and it makes no mention of my designated bay. There is a mention of quiet enjoyment. There's also a section which says the following "the right for the leaseholder and all persons authorised by the leaseholder at all times to use the common parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the premises( but not further or otherwise). Are these the sections in my lease which I can use to argue my case and counter claim for dpa? There is another section which concerns me however! "Not to permit any vehicle of any description belonging to the leaseholder his family servants visitors or licensees to remain on any part of the common parts in such manner as to obstruct the ready approach to any part of the building or any adjoining premises PROVIDED THAT ( for the avoidance of doubt) there is no parking whatsoever in XXXXX Rd.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 17, 9:35 PM
    • 48,322 Posts
    • 61,787 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi guys I've just taken a look at my lease and it makes no mention of my designated bay. There is a mention of quiet enjoyment. There's also a section which says the following "the right for the leaseholder and all persons authorised by the leaseholder at all times to use the common parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the premises( but not further or otherwise).

    Are these the sections in my lease which I can use to argue my case and counter claim for dpa? There is another section which concerns me however! "Not to permit any vehicle of any description belonging to the leaseholder his family servants visitors or licensees to remain on any part of the common parts in such manner as to obstruct the ready approach to any part of the building or any adjoining premises PROVIDED THAT ( for the avoidance of doubt) there is no parking whatsoever in XXXXX Rd.
    Originally posted by im_bigel
    Yes but I don't recommend rushing into a counter claim. The claim for DPA breach - if you have a claim - can wait. Defend & win this first!

    I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any sum at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Statement of Defence as already filed.
    You've made the above into a witness statement (WS) talking about a previously filed defence. But this is meant to be that first defence, no evidence is filed yet and this is not headed up WS.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 16th Apr 17, 10:13 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    Thanks I'm gonna change that tomorrow. Do I simply refer to it as a defense statement?

    Will The section regarding no parking whatsoever present a problem?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 17, 12:07 AM
    • 48,322 Posts
    • 61,787 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If you were parked in the road where the tenancy says 'no parking whatsoever' then I would say you have a problem if you show your lease - so I wouldn't!

    And yes, you will see example defences in the NEWBIES thread post #2. You appear to have read too far and concentrated on example witness statements (which doesn't happen for a few months!).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 17th Apr 17, 1:39 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    Statement of Defense
    'Dear Sirs' XXXXXXXX Parking and Property Management LTD

    The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

    I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any sum at all and this is my Statement of Defence.

    I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxx. I also assert that I was the registered keeper of that vehicle on the date 29/12/2016. I can also confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle.

    1 . I stopped outside the entrance of my flat to unload a 40 inch television and 8 bags of grocery shopping. (this cannot reasonably be carried from my legal parking spot). At no time was I parked, and my vehicle was only unloading for a matter of minutes.

    2. My lease imposes no Loading /unloading conditions although a permit for parking is displayed purely for the convenience of the claimant's parking attendant.

    3. No parking has taken place therefore no Parking charge can be issued.

    (A) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Highway Code talk about "parking","waiting", "loading or unloading" and "setting down or picking up passengers", each as a separate activity. "Loading and unloading" or "setting down or picking up passengers" are clearly different from parking or waiting.

    (B) Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

    (C) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

    (D) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

    (E) In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).

    (F) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728.
    ''After considering the facts at the time of the grant, Mr Justice Upjohn ruled that an ancillary right to stop, load and unload may be implied into the express grant of a right of way where such a right is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the right of way.'' The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.''

    4. If it can be proven that "parking" has occurred The Claimant did not comply with the IPC code of practice (Part B 15.1), regarding grace periods: “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.” 10 mins is generally accepted to be the minimum amount of time to read and understand a contract and make a decision to park or not to park.

    5 . Signage.
    The claimants signs do not mention anything regarding "loading" or "unloading" so it is impossible for any contract to be established. The claimants signs only mention "parking" and at no time was my vehicle "parked" otherwise than in accordance with. (Photograph evidence of sign boards are available to be provided upon request.)

    6. 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. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    7. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking and Property Management Ltd and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee who is expressly allowed on site. The claimant is unable to re-offer a contract on more onerous terms that those already specified in the lease, which grants an easement/ right for the leaseholder at all times to use the common parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the premises.

    8. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. The leaseholders' lease is missing any reference to parking permit requirements and involvement of Parking and Property Management Ltd. And there is no evidence that the original lease contract and revised lease contract with specific details of Parking and Property Management Ltd role and involvement was shared with the defendant.

    9. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £160 is an unenforceable penalty clause.


    (B) Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £160 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    ( C) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

    (E) Furthermore, Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £100 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied). The Particulars of Claim include an extra £60 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as parking charges plus interest.


    10. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.


    11. This 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.

    12. Parking and Property Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.

    (A) Parking and Property Management Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.

    (B) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.



    13. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

    (A) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question
    (B) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
    (C) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances as I was simply stopped for temporary loading/unloading and no loss or damage to the Claimant arose from this.
    (D) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.


    Statement of Truth:

    I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 20th Apr 17, 10:15 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    I wasn't sure if i should include the "Roboclaim" section and the lack of particulars in POC or wait until witness statement?

    Thanks in advance.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Apr 17, 10:30 PM
    • 48,322 Posts
    • 61,787 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would include the robo-claim section.

    You don't need this:

    (Photograph evidence of sign boards are available to be provided upon request.)
    Either delete it or change it to the fact that photos will be provided with your witness statement and at any hearing.

    I would remove 10 because you haven't relied on any promise to be allowed to unload, have you? Unless that's been promised before by the Managing Agent?

    Did you park on the actual disallowed road, or not? If not, then DO refer to your lease.

    I would remove the repetition here:

    12. Parking and Property Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.

    (A) Parking and Property Management Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • im_bigel
    • By im_bigel 22nd Apr 17, 8:03 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    im_bigel
    "I would remove 10 because you haven't relied on any promise to be allowed to unload, have you? Unless that's been promised before by the Managing Agent?"

    when permits were1st introduced they claimed to have chosen this company because they allowed 10mins grace for loading. I am searching for the letter but so far no joy! If i dont find it I will remove.

    Did you park on the actual disallowed road, or not? If not, then DO refer to your lease.
    My argument is I didn't Park and i was simply using the common parts to unload a purpose incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the premises.?

    will remove repetition and add lack of particulars and roboclaim

    thanks again
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

896Posts Today

7,008Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin