Help! County Court Claim from Premier Park LTD

esmerobbo

In your first post you said you were parked on a road near your back gate. The POC says you were parked on a garage which was it?

I was going to recommend finding out who owns the road, we have seen Premier issue on public highways before, they seem to forget when these new builds become adopted to stop issuing.

chili_pea

esmerobbo wrote: »

In your first post you said you were parked on a road near your back gate. The POC says you were parked on a garage which was it?

I was going to recommend finding out who owns the road, we have seen Premier issue on public highways before, they seem to forget when these new builds become adopted to stop issuing.

It wasn't on a public road. It's not even really a garage!
It's literally the back area of my flats so there's a communal bin shed and some designated parking spaces.

You have to go underneath a alcove to get to it. So it's completely out of the way hope that makes sense

Coupon-mad

Acknowledge that claim online and show us your defence when you have read at least 20 pepipoo threads about small claims; you'll soon see the wood for the trees.

chili_pea

Ok so this is my first draft fro my defence to the small claims court. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong or right and I will be more than happy to hear it.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds

1 No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 Lack of contract
3 Unlawful Penalty Charge

1. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF COST
The parking charge of £155.03 is punitive and unreasonable. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated damages and is therefore an unlawful penalty charge.
The signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for “contravening” with the terms of parking. This wording clearly indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Premier Park Ltd claims that its charges are in line with the BPA Ltd Code of Practice (CoP). Whilst the BPA Ltd CoP states:


“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.


19.6 If you’re parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.”

2. CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER – NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCEMENT CHARGES
The claimant may have the necessary contractual authority from the landowner to pursue this parking charge.
The claimant has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver. That is to say, that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, it is the properly appointed agent of the landowner or has been properly authorised by the landowner to recover unpaid parking charges from a driver. The driver signed a tenancy agreement for 6 months from 01/04/2013. The contract states no terms and conditions about parking regulations.
3. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE.
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .
The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty.

Mitigating Circumstances.
1. Upon moving into Hornbeam Close the occupants were advised by the landlords that parking restrictions did not apply. They advised parking by the properties back gate would be ideal.
2. The driver’s vehicle has been subject on two occasions of vandalism when left on the main road. Parking in a hidden area behind the roads and communal bins means the vehicle is not approached by the general public that use the private land as a walk through to the main shopping district. This has also affected the insurance. If the vehicle is not parked within a certain distance of the property the insurance becomes invalid.
3. Since this occasion the driver was ticketed on the 12/06/2013 Premier Park LTD have knocked on the tenants front door on a number of occasions suggesting they move the vehicle parked by the properties back gate otherwise it will receive a ticket. This option was not proposed to the tenants on the 12/06/2013.
4. The driver was unfortunate to suffer a serious attack on the 22/04/2013 crime ref: ******. The driver had not left the property for 51 days due to the impact of the crime. On the 12/06/2013 it was the first day the driver left the property in the vehicle. Please take into consideration that the driver would still be in recovery at this stage and not fully aware of surroundings.

Coupon-mad

That's a POPLA appeal and you've written 'appeal' as well. It should be a robust defence, rebutting all their points of claim and asserting why you are not liable.

That doesn't read as though you've read any small claim threads and there are loads on pepipoo forum full of links & defences discussed. ONLY read small claim threads on pepipoo, not POPLA appeal ones...

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Sorry but the mitigating circumstances are totally irrelevent!!!
So do as coupon mad suggests and dont bother with the story bit

chili_pea

Thanks guys I am currently trying to re write this and don't have much time now. Thanks for your help I appreciate you do this for free and it isn't a great thing to do around xmas!

Does anybody know if this would count as lack of evidence....

The original ticket that was left on my window is dated the 19/06/2013 however on the rest of the paper work they are claiming I was parked in the no parking area on the 12/06/2013 (including photos with that date)

Surely that suggests to me that the date they issued my ticket was incorrect... So how can they force me to pay for a ticket that is wrong?

Stroma

Try this on https://www.pepipoo.com as well you may get a faster bit of help with your defence.

chili_pea

yeah done ages ago thanks

Stroma

Well bump your thread over then because you need to get your defence in quickly