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
    • tom_hon
    • By tom_hon 27th Dec 17, 3:47 AM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    tom_hon
    Help! Court Claim Form Received
    • #1
    • 27th Dec 17, 3:47 AM
    Help! Court Claim Form Received 27th Dec 17 at 3:47 AM
    Hi all,

    I can't believe at the end I had to start a thread here... ok long story short, i will explain in point form:

    1. on 19/10/2016 I had my VW passat serviced at VW garage, had a loan car, drove back home, packed at the residential car park ( managed by UK CAR PARK), permit left in my passat (obvious reason: I sticked it on the windscreen, no point to take it off for few hours). So I got a ticket for not displaying a valid permit.

    2. I start the appeal and explain the above to the firm and they do not accept it, they said I should contact them on the phone when I parked my loan car and let them know the situation (SERIOUSLY?! Are they crazy?), then I appealed to IAS, failed as well.

    3. Then I started ignoring their letters, debt collector letters, until the letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors, I look up the thread here and respond to ask them to provide the details of the claim, which at first I thought will put them off, they haven't contact me for two and half month (I asked them to reply me within 14 days btw)

    4. Gladstones send a letter to me on 14th Nov again saying their letter before claim is compliant.

    5. A month later, I received court claim form dated 13th dec, the particulars of the claim is:
    Breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXX (where i live, and the space is a designated parking space), they claim £160 for parking charges /Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, interest £13.72, court fee £25, legal cost £50.

    6. I have just responded to the claim with acknowledgment of service and selected defend all claim, still have about 2 weeks time to submit my defence.

    Now, I think I need some help drawing up my defence here.

    Thank for all the help in advance.

    Tom
    Last edited by tom_hon; 27-12-2017 at 4:08 AM.
Page 1
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 27th Dec 17, 8:13 AM
    • 469 Posts
    • 504 Thanks
    claxtome
    • #2
    • 27th Dec 17, 8:13 AM
    • #2
    • 27th Dec 17, 8:13 AM
    Your scenario is quite common: 'Not displaying a permit in a residential car park'

    I can tell you know where the NEWBIES sticky thread is and post 2 in that thread gives example threads for your scenario.
    Also searching using key words like 'display permit' should return further threads.

    What you need to do now is to look at all the threads you can and put together your defence from ones used previously as the NEWBIES thread states.

    When ready post it here for comment.

    Finally a question for you: Are you defending as driver or keeper?
    If as keeper read up on POFA Schedule 4. In particular about compliant 'Notice to Driver' and 'Notice to Keeper' AND alter initial post to not indicate who drove; just refer to the 'driver' did.
    You can only defend as keeper if you have NOT admitted who the driver was in any correspondence.
    Last edited by claxtome; 28-12-2017 at 9:26 AM.
    • peter_the_piper
    • By peter_the_piper 27th Dec 17, 9:23 AM
    • 26,501 Posts
    • 33,925 Thanks
    peter_the_piper
    • #3
    • 27th Dec 17, 9:23 AM
    • #3
    • 27th Dec 17, 9:23 AM
    Please also check your lease/deeds to see what they say about parking.Hopefully it says you have an allocated spot and nothing about a permit etc.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 27th Dec 17, 11:22 AM
    • 6,738 Posts
    • 8,721 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 27th Dec 17, 11:22 AM
    • #4
    • 27th Dec 17, 11:22 AM
    As said look at your lease about parking rights

    There have been many cases about residential parking
    and your unfettered right to park.

    Judges are non too pleased with the parking cowboys
    and their stupid legals trying this on

    The signs are important, IE where does it say you have
    to phone them in your circumstances ?

    Despite what they say, you have a permit to park.

    Gladstones are totally incompetent solicitors and if you
    have requested full information and they ignored, clearly
    they have not complied.

    They must fully comply to the new procedure as of
    the 1st Oct 2017. However you are dealing with
    the infamous Gladstones who are well known
    for their lack of understanding about anything

    Get yourself a stiff drink and read up all about
    the Gladstones farce ... you could not make this rubbish up

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gladstones
    Last edited by beamerguy; 27-12-2017 at 11:29 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • tom_hon
    • By tom_hon 27th Dec 17, 9:59 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tom_hon
    • #5
    • 27th Dec 17, 9:59 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Dec 17, 9:59 PM
    I had a read on the lease today, and the part related to parking said:

    The exclusive right to park one roadworthy private motor vehicle on the Parking Space.

    So nothing about permit is mentioned here.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Dec 17, 10:25 PM
    • 1,540 Posts
    • 1,690 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #6
    • 27th Dec 17, 10:25 PM
    • #6
    • 27th Dec 17, 10:25 PM
    Anything on being able to introduce new regulations?
    • tom_hon
    • By tom_hon 27th Dec 17, 11:57 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tom_hon
    • #7
    • 27th Dec 17, 11:57 PM
    • #7
    • 27th Dec 17, 11:57 PM
    There is one clause which said:

    Comply with and observe any reasonable regulations which the Company and Landlord may consistently with the provisions of this Lease make to govern the use of the Estate. Such regulations may be restrictive of acts done on the Estate detrimental to its character or amenities and any costs charges or expenses incurred by the Company in preparing or supplying copies of such regulations or in doing works for the improvement of the Estate providing services or employing gardeners porters or other employees shall be deemed to have been properly incurred by the Company in pursuance of its obligations under Schedule 4.
    Not sure if this is what you referring to tho.But its the closest one I can find in the lease.
    • tom_hon
    • By tom_hon 3rd Jan 18, 6:43 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    tom_hon
    • #8
    • 3rd Jan 18, 6:43 AM
    • #8
    • 3rd Jan 18, 6:43 AM
    So I have draft my defence (mainly change some wording to make it suit to my situation), after lots of reading, it seems the main bit is the lease give me legal right to park without permit or restriction no matter what. Please advise if I need to add more into the defence.

    Defence


    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any amount at all.

    Preliminary
    2. The Claimant 'UKCPM' has failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Its sparse Particulars do not disclose any cause of action which could give rise to a claim, and their single-page Letter Before Claim was no more than an aggressive demand, designed to intimidate and mislead the defendant, rather than narrow the issues or provide any specific detail.

    2.1. Despite the Defendant requesting this information in pre-action communication, this Claimant has failed to set out the basis of the claim - trespass or contractual breach? It has not specified how the sum sought represents any fee, charge, costs or damages incurred - nor evidenced that any contract existed or was breached - hence the Defendant is having to attempt to cover all possibilities, with no fair opportunity to make an informed response.

    2.1.1. The Claimant's solicitors merely sent a photograph of the car and a very small, illegible UKCPM sign and no other details, copies of letters, facts or evidence.

    2.2. The Particulars of Claim (POC) fail to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5. The POC are incoherent, make no sense, and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.

    2.2.1. The POC contain no facts and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 (a). The Claimants are serial issuers of generic claims like this 'roboclaim’ given away in this case by typical, generic lack of detail. The Claimant has not elaborated on the alleged 'breach of terms'. The Claimant claims £160 for ''Parking Charges/Damages'' despite the fact parking charges cannot be claimed as damages except by a landowner as a remedy for trespass, and cites ''indemnity costs if applicable'' whatever that is supposed to mean, bearing in mind the Claimant previously alleged this was about a single £100 charge.

    2.2.2. Practice Direction 3A refering Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this:
    ‘1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    - those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    - those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    - those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.'

    2.3. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    2.4. The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

    2.5. The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.

    2.6. Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the driver of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is on loan car agreement with Ipswich Volkswagen, the vehicle is insured and the Defendant is permitted to use it on 19/10/2016.

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

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    5. It is denied that the Defendant 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 leaseholder of [address], whose 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 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.

    6. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    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.
    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant 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.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of 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.

    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 this Defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 1:05 AM
    • 52,869 Posts
    • 66,390 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 4th Jan 18, 1:05 AM
    • #9
    • 4th Jan 18, 1:05 AM
    Looks OK, a little bit long but it covers the bases. But:

    the Independent Parking Committee (IPC),
    Nope, International Parking Community.
    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.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Jan 18, 1:33 PM
    • 1,879 Posts
    • 3,068 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The bit in your lease which allows for new regulations actually says this:
    Such regulations may be restrictive of acts done on the Estate detrimental to its character or amenities


    So no it doesn't allow them to impose things you MUST do (ie display a permit), only things you MUST NOT do (eg walk a dog off the lead, picnic in the amenity areas, play ball games in the garden etc), and the "acts" they relate to must be detrimental. If you're parking in your own space you're doing nothing detrimental (although they'd argue that other people don't, or allow visitors to park in other people's spaces, and the misuse of the parking spaces is detrimental). But it's the word "restrictive" which kills any argument they raise that says that they were entitled to impose a new regulation compelling residents to display a permit or face a fine.


    Read hairray's thread and Daniel san's thread - precedent letters on there which you may not want to send but they will educate you about the lease issues. You have a right to quiet enjoyment, which they are interfering with. They have no right to introduce any new regulation compelling you to do something new, only new regulations prohibiting you from doing something detrimental to the estate. Even if they did have the right to introduce such a regulation, there is certainly no right to bring in a third party and impose on you a contractual relationship with them, entitling them to charge you for a breach - the only amounts you have to pay under your lease are the ground rent/service charges.


    In your case, the clause in the lease re. new regulations is much better than the clauses in those other two cases because of the word "restrictive" - other leases I've seen are much more vague.


    I'm assuming you are a leaseholder. If you're a tenant, it's slightly more tricky because you have to argue what rights your landlord has and then argue they were passed onto you. Just another hoop to jump through.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
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

1,954Posts Today

8,382Users online

Martin's Twitter