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
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 10:16 AM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:16 AM
    Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay 12th Sep 17 at 10:16 AM
    Firstly I know its stupid but I did not appeal or reply to letters. Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Somone has 20! Most have said PCM are only following up the ones they appealed and not all of them so I stupidly ignored every letter I got!

    I now have two official (stamped) claim letters and I have already extended both by 14 days. I wish I saw this forum sooner! Instead, in my extra 14 days I saw a solicitor who said because I didn't have the original PCNs, he could not do anything but make an offer. I bought the lease, the signage in parking area and the letters and he did not look at any of it!

    Background of my case - 4 visitor bays were blocked off for work carried out in a new builds garden. I had my visitor permit on show and parked not in a bay, but somewhere out of the way. I received 5 tickets in total and they are taking me to court for £1,000. Since then, the landowners have increased visitor parking bays by a further 15-20 - they must have realised there was a shortage!

    I have to send my defence by this friday and don't even know if I have anything to stand on!

    Also not good, my solictor told me to make offer of half so he sent an email on my behalf saying "without accepting liability" we offer you £525. They rejected and said minimum they would accept is £800!

    Please help!!!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DEFENCE (after advice from Coupon-Mad - thank you!)

    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. (RED SECTION - I have read up and this claim does try to include interest and legal costs and mentions "damages" so think this is relevant for me?)

    Background
    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 [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (Would I include this?)
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. (not sure about this section?)

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    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. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.(I can't find much information in the lease so don't think this is relevant - especially considering I am not the leaseholder - my partner is)

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. (Again, signage included in pictures but don't think relevant. Or could this point link to the fact they took away spaces?)

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    (all relevant - but i did have my permit on show everytime)

    Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. 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.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. 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.
    (last point is definitely relevant, attached pictures of signage as no sure the rest is - signage may be sufficient?)

    9. 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.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. 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 the Defence are true.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further relevant points;
    • As Coupon-Mad confirmed, Saeed v Plustrade are relevant here ;
      "But for the interference the claimant was able to park on 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 9 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right.'".
      Also to note here, once work was completed, the spaces increased to 20-25 spaces in competition with the same number of persons showing they realised the lack of spacing meant people were not able to park in the confines of a marked bay.
      (Not sure how to word this - I have amended the parking space numbers. note, not every ticket I got was due to the V bays being blocked off as shown in attachment but it was due to the lack of numbers before they increased it).
    • Not sure if there is anything else that goes in my favor?
    • Also, in case of confusion, they have taken me to court in two separate claims?? One is for 3 of the dates, and the other is for the remaining two. Is this to get more money out of me so I have to pay more legal and court fees on top of the original charge?? Or was it the court who decided to do this in two separate claims?
    Any advice welcome please! Appreciate your help so far.


    Thank you


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
    Court Case 1
    hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg

    Court Case 2
    hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg

    Car park signage
    hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg

    Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
    hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg

    Visitor bays blocked off
    hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg

    Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
    hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg

    Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
    hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg
    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 12-09-2017 at 1:33 PM. Reason: Nosferautu noticed I only mentioned singular at start :-)
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • 504 Posts
    • 601 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    As youre new you CANNOT post "live" links to other websites. Use somehting like tinypic to host the pictures, and post "hxxp" links - so not "http", change to "hxxp" -- and we can post them properly.

    So confusion - you have ONE claim form or TWO? You said anbove "a" stamped claim form, singular, then at the bottom you say you have two?

    What does your lease state about your rights to park? Youve not told us anything on it.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • 2,306 Posts
    • 2,811 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:38 AM
    images can not be uploaded to the forum .......

    you need to host / upload them else where .... some where like tinypic

    you then post the url here

    when you do you will need to change the http bit to xxtp ( or any such veriation) as newbies can not post links untill they get a few posts under thier belts

    Ralph
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.

    I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • 5,960 Posts
    • 7,678 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.

    I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.
    Originally posted by Laura Higgs 76
    There is not a converter.
    Upload from your pc to somewhere like tinypic and you
    will get a URL link
    Because at the moment you can not show a link, you
    paste the link on here but use hxxp instead of http
    and someone here will convert it
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Sep 17, 11:50 AM
    That would explain why I couldn't find it - sorry.

    All done thank you
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • 504 Posts
    • 601 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
    Court Case 1
    http://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg

    Court Case 2
    http://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg

    Car park signage
    http://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg

    Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
    http://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg

    Visitor bays blocked off
    http://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg

    Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
    http://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg

    Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
    http://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg

    -----------------

    Absolutely no mileage on mr / ms confusion. Thats an irrelevancy.
    • Laura Higgs 76
    • By Laura Higgs 76 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Laura Higgs 76
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 8:43 AM
    I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!

    Thanks again for the support so far.

    MY 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;

    2.1 The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
    It just states ‘parking charges’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with XXX with 1 other named driver, XXXXX, permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on 18/01/2016 and 19/01/2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXXX.

    5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (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 Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    6. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    7. 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.
    7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (‘IPC’) Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory;
    7.2. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.


    10. 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.

    11. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 per ticket equaling £200 for two, to a charge of £417.32. The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents/visitors from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

    a. The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

    12. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    13. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.

    Last edited by Laura Higgs 76; 15-09-2017 at 8:47 AM. Reason: removed personal details - sorry!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    • 50,061 Posts
    • 63,461 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!
    No nasty comments at all - that's good and based on one in the NEWBIES thread.

    This is a bit buried:

    11 The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost
    ...so make sure you repeat that point clearly at DQ stage, then again, once it is allocated to your local court (repeat it like a stuck record until a Judge does something to merge or strike out the claims).

    At each stage of paperwork from now on, attach a covering letter telling the court about the abuse of process and waste of the courts time and your Defence costs, asking the Court to strike out one of the claims/vacate one hearing if two are set, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease.

    This sort of thing needs to go into your Witness Statement later:
    Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Someone has 20!
    ...because you want the Judge to see the PPC scam protection racket for what it is.
    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.

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

1,350Posts Today

6,121Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin