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
    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 24th May 17, 12:10 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Zita_Z
    Residential parking in allocated bay - Court Claim received
    • #1
    • 24th May 17, 12:10 AM
    Residential parking in allocated bay - Court Claim received 24th May 17 at 12:10 AM
    Hi All,

    I have spent hours reading up on the topic as I have just been served by Parking & Property Management. Please can someone help me figure out if I have a case?

    I live in an apartment complex with a multi-storey carpark. Residents are allocated parking spaces and given a sticker (with a disproportionately small sticky surface) that they need to display at all times. My parking space is on the 7th floor of the complex, which means there are a lot of centrifugal and centripetal forces at play when I am driving up/down.

    On the day of the incident, I was in a rush to get to a doctor’s appointment (I had a very bad cold with a fever, I don’t know if this could help), and after I parked my car (my surgery is within walking distance), I forgot to check if my sticker was still in place. The next morning I found the PCN on my dashboard for not displaying the ticket properly. It had fallen to the floor of the passenger side, but it was still visible if someone looked in through the window (can provide photos timestamped from the same morning).

    So between 6 PM the night before and 8 AM next morning they managed to spot my missing sticker. The original fine would have been 60 pounds (100 if paid later than 28 days), now it is 237 pounds.

    I am wondering if you can help determine whether I have a chance to dispute this ticket. I think I have a few arguments that could help:
    - Primacy of contract: my lease states that I have an allocated parking spot for one car (so Jopson ruling may apply). The fact that they have a permit scheme is secondary.
    - Legality of contract: as this is a private apartment complex, they have a monopoly over parking spaces. I do not have the choice of not parking there as that is my only option (as opposed to a shop’s car park). The property management company may have signed a contract with these people, but I did not. They have signs displayed in the car park, but I have no say in what is in the terms as they were drafted in advance. These are unfair terms.
    - Circumstances: the fact that I was physically unwell at the time (can provide doctor’s appointment proof), and that the permit simply fell off my dashboard due to circling around up to floor 7.
    - There was no loss of income. I had the right to park my car in that spot, it was allocated to me, and it could not have been rented to anyone in that timeframe. I do pay for this spot through the rent I pay to my landlord, it is MY spot (they don’t own the car park, only operate it). Also, as this is a residential car park, a note to say ’please provide proof of permit’ would have been a much reasonable 1st step, rather than straight up issuing a 60 pound fine.
    - Disproportionately high sum. I refuse to pay 237 pounds in a situation where I had the right to park in my spot and I have/had proof at the time of the fine.

    Side note: my boyfriend has received a very similar charge from them. In his case, the sticker fell off the windshield, into the small crack between the glass and the dashboard, which resulted in only the top half of the ticket being visible. At the time I tried to reason with PPM, I called them and went through their internal appeals process (they rejected, no surprise there...). Now I’m just very angry and want justice.

    I would really appreciate any advice. Also, if anyone can help with defence letter writing, that would be amazing (I saw that a few people had help from experienced members).

    Thank you!
Page 1
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 24th May 17, 6:52 AM
    • 1,297 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #2
    • 24th May 17, 6:52 AM
    • #2
    • 24th May 17, 6:52 AM
    First two items are all you need. You're being unwell, their loss, and the amount are either not relevant or of no consequence.

    Jopson applies but Pace v Noor is better.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 24th May 17, 12:32 PM
    • 875 Posts
    • 1,462 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #3
    • 24th May 17, 12:32 PM
    • #3
    • 24th May 17, 12:32 PM
    Have a look at my Admiral thread. A different issue to your (staff carpark rather than residential) but it deals with the unfit for purpose windscreen permit holder that fell off. And you can show that it was visible (albeit on the floor).


    There are letters there which you can crib part of for your defence and it will give you ideas.


    The really important thing for you to do is search for and read other residential threads on here, there will be draft defences on those. You have already started to educate yourself and have made a good start, but you need to carry on. Highly unlikely anybody will just draft a defence for you. Regulars will expect you to have a go and then they will help you by commenting and making suggestions.


    There is no easy route here. You have to defend it properly if you are going to defend, and this takes time and considerable effort in respect of the time you have to put into research and reading other threads.


    You MUST have written evidence of your parking rights - if it isn't in your tenancy document (it often isn't) get your landlord to confirm now in writing that it was an oral term that you have the exclusive right to park in bay number x. And get a copy of your landlord's lease showing HE has the right to the parking space and what rights the landowner/MC has to introduce parking regulations. If your landlord won't give this to you (he probably won't even have a copy to hand) or if you don't want to ask him/her, then get the lease from land registry. Call land registry, they may do it over the phone or they'll ask you to send in a form and a cheque (it's an OC2), I think it costs about £10.


    Two cases I'm aware of recently where the judge looked at the lease and said it allowed new parking regs which allowed the landowner to bring in a PPC and require permits (I'd disagree with that - even if new regs are allowed, they surely can't allow a landowner to impose a contractual relationship with a 3rd party, and the 3rd party can't use it to impose a contract on you, and the landowner also can't rely on it to entitle it/the PPC to levy a charge on residents which is separate to the other charges permitted under the lease (service charge and ground rent). Furthermore, variations to a lease (which new regs would be) must be by way of a Deed of Variation).


    Also aware of a case where the judge said even if the landlord's lease contained the parking rights the tenancy didn't mention them. So you must take steps to obtain this info now.


    Also read Parking Prankster blog - always a good read, but more importantly it's educational.
    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 26th May 17, 12:49 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    • #4
    • 26th May 17, 12:49 PM
    • #4
    • 26th May 17, 12:49 PM
    Hi,

    Thank you so much for the advice and tips. I have bookmarked/downloaded a few defence letter drafts shared here. I'm also reading the Parking Prankster blog. However, English is my second language, so the legal jargon and writing the letters (I need to defend both mine and my boyfriend's claim...) is a bit of a challenge. I will try to come up with something and share here, as any help or feedback would be much appreciated.

    I did find the part in my tenancy agreement that talks about parking. It says 'one allocated parking spot', no fine print or footnotes. It doesn't specify which parking bay, I don't know if this matters. They just told me which bay to park in and gave me the sticker. I will ask my landlord about his lease to make defence even more bulletproof.

    I am planning to also argue that the stickers are not fit for the purpose. In both cases I had them inside the car, one fell off due to extreme weather conditions (-5 C outside, condensation inside, sticker sort of peeled off), and once simply fell off by the time I drove up to the 7th floor of the structure.

    Does it help if the car park has a gate with a PIN to enter/leave? I could argue that this reduces the chances of unauthorised parking, and therefore checking permits/stickers seems excessive.

    Thank you!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th May 17, 12:03 AM
    • 46,966 Posts
    • 60,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 28th May 17, 12:03 AM
    • #5
    • 28th May 17, 12:03 AM
    It says 'one allocated parking spot', no fine print or footnotes. It doesn't specify which parking bay, I don't know if this matters. They just told me which bay to park in and gave me the sticker.
    Good, so you had a verbal contract and a right to park in that bay, and no 'parking charge' was agreed, nor was it mentioned in your tenancy.

    This defence is worth a look, plus the suggested change I posted, which is about a residential case where a tenant has a right to park:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72611570#post72611570

    You could adapt that (my post is only a breakdown of point #1 of the defence, not the whole defence, which is as shown by Inferno).

    I am planning to also argue that the stickers are not fit for the purpose. In both cases I had them inside the car, one fell off due to extreme weather conditions (-5 C outside, condensation inside, sticker sort of peeled off), and once simply fell off by the time I drove up to the 7th floor of the structure.

    Does it help if the car park has a gate with a PIN to enter/leave? I could argue that this reduces the chances of unauthorised parking, and therefore checking permits/stickers seems excessive.
    Yes, you can use both those points in addition to the other arguments you have seen in defences. Both are valid points for your case.
    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.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 28th May 17, 6:40 PM
    • 1,297 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #6
    • 28th May 17, 6:40 PM
    • #6
    • 28th May 17, 6:40 PM
    I could argue that this reduces the chances of unauthorised parking, and therefore checking permits/stickers seems excessive.
    +1

    Add that in too.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 28th May 17, 6:58 PM
    • 39,250 Posts
    • 78,416 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #7
    • 28th May 17, 6:58 PM
    • #7
    • 28th May 17, 6:58 PM
    Hi,

    Thank you so much for the advice and tips. I have bookmarked/downloaded a few defence letter drafts shared here. I'm also reading the Parking Prankster blog. However, English is my second language, so the legal jargon and writing the letters (I need to defend both mine and my boyfriend's claim...) is a bit of a challenge. I will try to come up with something and share here, as any help or feedback would be much appreciated.

    I did find the part in my tenancy agreement that talks about parking. It says 'one allocated parking spot', no fine print or footnotes. It doesn't specify which parking bay, I don't know if this matters. They just told me which bay to park in and gave me the sticker. I will ask my landlord about his lease to make defence even more bulletproof.

    I am planning to also argue that the stickers are not fit for the purpose. In both cases I had them inside the car, one fell off due to extreme weather conditions (-5 C outside, condensation inside, sticker sort of peeled off), and once simply fell off by the time I drove up to the 7th floor of the structure.

    Does it help if the car park has a gate with a PIN to enter/leave? I could argue that this reduces the chances of unauthorised parking, and therefore checking permits/stickers seems excessive.

    Thank you!
    Originally posted by Zita_Z
    You might find this useful.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=sticky

    "The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought."
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 30th May 17, 1:10 PM
    • 875 Posts
    • 1,462 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #8
    • 30th May 17, 1:10 PM
    • #8
    • 30th May 17, 1:10 PM
    The language to use is something like this:


    If a contract existed between the C and the D (which is denied), the C claims that it was a term of that contract that the D must display a permit. With the permit, the C provided the D with a plastic envelope in which to display the said permit, which was designed to be stuck onto the inside of the car windscreen. It must therefore have been an implied term of the contract that the D was to use that plastic envelope to display the permit. The plastic envelope was not fit for its purpose: it came away from the car windscreen when the car was unattended, after a period of hot weather and after a journey which had presumably caused it to gradually peel away from the windscreen, falling down inside the car when it was parked. The implied term to display the permit at all times in the plastic envelope was impossible to comply with and therefore frustrated.
    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 9th Jun 17, 2:13 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    • #9
    • 9th Jun 17, 2:13 PM
    Technical question RE defence letter
    • #9
    • 9th Jun 17, 2:13 PM
    Dear all,
    Thank you so much for your helpful advice. I am in the process of writing my defence letter (already did the acknowledgement step online), and I have a technical question. When I'm submitting my defence online, can I attach files (i.e. evidence)? Do they have an interface to upload additional files? Or does everything have to be in one file? This could affect how I phrase my letter ('please see attachment X' vs 'please see below'). Apologies if this has been asked before, I could not find info on this on the FAQ threads.

    Many thanks in advance!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 7:19 PM
    • 46,966 Posts
    • 60,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Your questions are answered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. NO EVIDENCE AT FIRST DEFENCE STAGE.
    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.

    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 10th Jun 17, 7:22 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    Defence letter draft - please can you review?
    Hi,

    Thank you for your support, I have been able to piece together a defence statement based on the examples shared. Please can you have a quick look and let me know if this is more or less okay? Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. I mentioned before I am not a native speaker so I tried to keep the language simple, I hope that won't come across as unprofessional?

    And one quick question (I read the newbies thread but this is not clear): is it a possibility that the court will strike the case out and I won't actually have to go to court? Or at this point is it a given that I'll have a court hearing? A bit nervous as a foreigner to appear in court without representation (twice, as my boyfriend is fighting them too...).

    Thank you!

    See below:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:
    PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
    -and-
    ZITA XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    I am Zita XXXXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

    (1.) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

    (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.

    (1.2.) The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    (1.3.) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim.

    (1.4.) This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

    (1.5.) The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is robo-claims and as such 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.
    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.

    (2.) There is no mention of any ‘parking scheme’ in the signed tenancy agreement, nor any charges for parking. My tenancy agreement states “an allocated parking space is provided for one car”.

    (2.1.) This Claimant is not a party to the tenancy agreement and cannot lawfully vary that agreement. This Claimant has no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no such contract with them can exist when I was authorised to - by virtue of my tenancy rights - in possession at this location.
    The introduction of a permit system, which imposes new obligations on residents and their visitors and imposes an obligation to pay a set charge for any 'failure to comply' is not, under any interpretation, a regulation which can be imposed pursuant to any clauses in the tenancy agreements. Such onerous terms are not for the use and enjoyment of residents and such an imposition by a third party firm is incompatible with tenants' and visitors' prior rights to quiet enjoyment of the property.

    (2.2.) Even if the Managing Agent has authorised this scheme, it is averred that the intention of such a permit system is solely to discourage trespassers, not to penalise residents and visitors. Under the prior Tenancy Agreement, the residents are already granted a right to park. A covenant for quiet enjoyment is a standard feature in modern leases and ASTs and is implied where not expressly provided, along with rights to pass and re-pass and park, as was offered by the landlord to this tenant and the tenant's legitimate visitors. This was an integral part of the rented property as offered to the tenant at the time of signing that agreement, which this parking firm are not a party to and nor were their terms or charges a feature of the tenancy agreement.

    (2.3.) In Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, an attempt to remove an existing resident's right to park, and an attempt to charge for parking, was made by a Managing Agent. It was held that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) which caused detriment to residents was in breach of the principle that ''a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”. Even if there are signs put up, terms cannot be retrospectively added into a contract by a third party; a parking firm cannot disregard the rights of tenants and their visitors, delivery drivers etc. as was found by a Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, in June 2016.
    Authorities to support my defence include but are not limited to the (higher court level) Appeal case heard at Oxford County Court by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. Similar Small Claim decisions in 2016 include Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P - C7GF50J7. All three cases were brought by Gladstones for parking operators (including the original Jopson claim which went to appeal and is persuasive on the lower Courts). In all cases, it was found that the parking company could not override residents’ existing rights by requiring a permit to park and that the signs were of no consequence, due to the primacy of contract enjoyed by the Defendants.

    (2.4.) As this parking space is one directly allocated to me on the lease, you have not sought approval for the use of it from the actual landholder, ie myself. You have trespassed on my leased land. Your involvement on this land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead you carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests you are purportedly there to uphold. In any case, my lease in respect of the common areas of the grounds and my designated parking area places no restrictions on the parking facilities such as those you have tried to imply, let alone a penalty regime for an alleged contractual offer to use my own allocated parking area I already have such rights or to place restrictions on visiting guests. The alleged debt(s) as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    (2.5.) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance. I would like to point out that this residential car park has allocated bays, and therefore claiming any loss of profit would be unreasonable. Furthermore, Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, makes it clear the keeper can only be liable for the amount on the Notice to Keeper. The Notice to Keeper sent by the Claimant stated the charge was "£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 28 days". The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    (2.5.) There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents 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 the parking spaces provided. The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the Lease.
    I request the court strike out the claim for 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''.

    (3.) I argue that the permits are not fit for the purpose. If a contract existed between the Claimant and the Defendant (which is denied), the Claimant claims that it was a term of that contract that the Defendant must display a permit. With the permit, the Claimant provided the Defendant with a plastic envelope in which to display the said permit, which was designed to be adhered onto the inside of the car windscreen. It must therefore have been an implied term of the contract that the Defendant was to use that plastic envelope to display the permit. The plastic envelope was not fit for its purpose: it came away from the car windscreen when the car was unattended, falling down inside the car when it was parked. The implied term to display the permit at all times in the plastic envelope was impossible to comply with and therefore frustrated.

    (3.1.) I have taken measurements and calculated that the ratio of sticky to non-sticky surface is 1681 mm2 to 7921 mm2, a mere 21.22%. As my allocated parking bay is on the 7th floor of the car park, it takes 6 sharp turns to drive up. This has put significant centrifugal and centripetal forces on the sticker on a daily basis, which has thus de-attached from the windscreen and fell onto the passenger’s side floor mat. I can provide time-stamped photo evidence from the morning of the PCN appearing on my windscreen that prove that the sticker was still visible and with the zooming function of the parking attendant’s digital camera, it could have been captured to confirm it was a valid permit for the allocated bay.

    (3.2.) In a recent appeal rejection letter from the Claimant regarding a sticker visibility case, they responded the below:
    “If the permit is not totally visible on the said occasion whether intentional or not, we feel the driver must take responsibility for this.” […] “Signage also states that a permit must be “fully” displayed. We recommend using a ‘tax disc’ style holder.”
    I argue that based on the case of C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot. The judge dismissed the claim and ruled that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to provide permits that are fir for the purpose. Also, in 2017, in a residential car park, electronic permits or a database of vehicle registration numbers would be a much more reasonable solution. The current permit system puts residents at an unfair disadvantage.

    (3.4.) The signs in the car park that had been put up by the Claimant listing their ‘Conditions of Parking’ include the below sentence: “Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted”. I believe this is an unfair term as any number of out-of-control or vis maior events can happen, where retrospective evidence should be accepted. In a residential car park, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should be respected rather than the unlawful harassment of residents. A notice asking the vehicle keeper to provide evidence of authority to park within x days would be a humane and reasonable procedure in these cases.
    (4.) Extenuating circumstances at the time the PCN was issued.

    (4.1.) On the evening before the PCN was stuck onto my vehicle, I was feeling severely unwell with a high fever and flu-like symptoms, and was on my way to a doctor’s appointment at my local GP surgery (I can provide proof of the appointment). I was not in a condition to notice that the sticker has peeled off the windshield and fell onto the floor mat.

    (5.) I believe that the constant monitoring and predatory operation carried out by the parking attendant on behalf of the Claimant is excessive and unnecessary. The car park is equipped with gates at the entrance and exit of the structure. The gates require a 4-digit PIN to be entered upon arriving/leaving. This heavily reduces the possibility of unauthorised parking or non-residents’ vehicles entering the car park. 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. I believe the outdated sticky permit system had been installed to allow the Claimant to unlawfully claim charges from residents. It is a nuisance for residents and puts them at a disadvantage.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


    (Name) (Signature) (Date)!
    Last edited by Zita_Z; 12-06-2017 at 5:50 PM. Reason: Removing name
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Jun 17, 8:18 PM
    • 6,578 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    The Deep
    You may also like to consider how you can extract revenge for all of this hassle. You can when you win ask the judge for unreasonable behaviour expenses, and consider in slower time a claim for improper use of your data.

    These companies are hired to manage parking for the benefit of the occupants, not to harass them.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 12th Jun 17, 5:49 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    Hi,
    Thanks so much... It's been such a nightmare so far, the scare tactics and the threats really caused a lot of stress. I am not sure if I should counterclaimor just be happy when (if) it's over... I will surely address the topic with the property managers and the managing agent as I am not the only one in the complex who got PCNs for ridiculous reasons from this sham of a company.

    In terms of the wording/length of the letter, is this more or less okay to send off? Shall I dial back on the accusatory tone a little or is this still within acceptable boundaries?

    Many thanks for all your help!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Jun 17, 6:18 PM
    • 6,578 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    The Deep
    It's been such a nightmare so far, the scare tactics and the threats really caused a lot of stress. I am not sure if I should counterclaim ...

    Why not? A small amount for stress, say not more than £100, should bring them to their senses, plus a claim for unreasonable behaviour costs. Have you got your landlord on side?

    The beauty of a counter claim is that it means that the PPC cannot not pull out at the last minute.
    Last edited by The Deep; 12-06-2017 at 6:21 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 17, 10:51 PM
    • 46,966 Posts
    • 60,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    is it a possibility that the court will strike the case out and I won't actually have to go to court? Or at this point is it a given that I'll have a court hearing? A bit nervous as a foreigner to appear in court without representation (twice, as my boyfriend is fighting them too...).
    It is possible that the court might strike out a claim, yes.

    And possible that the claimant might discontinue. We do see cases discontinued, when robustly defended.

    But many proceed to a hearing (where we see people here win, 99% of the time) so you must proceed on the assumption that there will be a hearing for you and your boyfriend. It is TERRIBLE that your boyfriend is also fighting this menace, and I think you should also mention that in your defence, that:

    This claimant is using predatory practices and targeting residents to the extent that you are aware of others also having to fight these charges, despite the residents having primacy of contract.

    I like your defence. I would say 2.4 needs editing as it is written to say 'you' which should be changed to match the rest of the defence, i.e. 'the Claimant'.
    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.

    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 12th Jun 17, 10:56 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    I know it is hard to tell, but based on the story (sticker falling on the floor, being sick at the time, no contract and no mention of them on my lease), do I have any chance of the court dismissing it without a hearing? Cause if I do, I might just stick to my defense. I have to keep in mind that I have 2 tickets to defend (my boyfriend got one too for a similarly ridiculous reason). I assume if I counterclaim than there is a higher chance of this actually ending up in court (a hearing), and their solicitor showing up (as they have more of a financial interest)?

    Also, is it best to avoid admitting I was the driver? My current defense relies on the fact that I was unwell at the time I parked my car, which implies that I was driving it. Am I better off admitting this and rely on the illness as a circumstance, or is it always best to NOT admit if you were the driver?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 17, 11:31 PM
    • 46,966 Posts
    • 60,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    based on the story (sticker falling on the floor, being sick at the time, no contract and no mention of them on my lease), do I have any chance of the court dismissing it without a hearing?
    Probably not; strike-outs are rare, and normally due to poorly-worded claims, not the defence.

    I assume if I counterclaim than there is a higher chance of this actually ending up in court (a hearing), and their solicitor showing up (as they have more of a financial interest)?
    Yes, and counter-claims are not easy to write (there is no template). So you might prefer just to defend.


    Also, is it best to avoid admitting I was the driver? My current defense relies on the fact that I was unwell at the time I parked my car, which implies that I was driving it. Am I better off admitting this and rely on the illness as a circumstance, or is it always best to NOT admit if you were the driver?
    I would remove the bit about being unwell, and would instead have a section putting the claimant to strict proof of their full compliance with the POFA, stating that the driver has not been evidenced and there is no lawful obligation upon a keeper to give up the name of the driver to a private parking firm.
    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.

    • Zita_Z
    • By Zita_Z 14th Jun 17, 6:31 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Zita_Z
    Thank you so much for the advice. I ended up removing the unwell bit, and added a brief paragraph about the fact that they have not identified the driver and POFA requirements should be met for Keeper Liability to apply. Unfortunately, in my boyfriend's case, we were naive enough to go through their internal appeals process. I can't remember 100% but I think in order to do that he had to admit to being the driver. From your experience, how much harder does it make to defend cases where the driver is known? Or is it irrelevant as long as the defence is solid? Thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 11:32 PM
    • 46,966 Posts
    • 60,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    From your experience, how much harder does it make to defend cases where the driver is known? Or is it irrelevant as long as the defence is solid?
    Irrelevant if the defence is solid; we pretty much never see cases lost!
    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.

    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 15th Jun 17, 7:55 AM
    • 9,880 Posts
    • 8,865 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Not wanting to be a wet blanket, but you don't have a lease - your landlord does. You have a tenancy agreement. I am assuming this from your posts.

    Your landlord can not confer rights to their tenant that are not allowed in their lease, nor can they override and restrictive clauses. So sight of the lease would help you.

    You mention Beavis, which does have some benefits for motorists in amongst the victory for PPCs. But since courts generally assume it is a PPCS winner and judges have almost certainly not read the bit you are relying on re penalties, you should quote the relevant paragraphs.

    I would revisit your defence to ensure that you are not inferring that you have a lease.
    Furthermore, you should claim some form of natural curtailment of your freedom to enjoy a normal residency as if you wanted to give a visitor your parking space, there appears to be no scheme to allow you to do this.
    Last edited by Guys Dad; 15-06-2017 at 8:01 AM.
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

3,072Posts Today

9,128Users online

Martin's Twitter