PCN from CPM

Akumo

The signage also states that:
'A valid UK CPM permit & Tax disc must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times/displaying bay or area allocated permits must park in the corresponding bay or area.

Akumo

I noticed that bargepole had written a defence, that I should be able to base my defence around at the following link:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5740169&page=2#21

Akumo

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESSS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:

UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

___________
DEFENCE
__________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. The Defendant was also the tenant of a property at the location at that time, and was issued with a permit for use within the car parking area.

3. On the material date, the Defendant stopped the vehicle at a convenient point close to the entrance of the building, for the purposes of loading and unloading.

4. On any reasonable construction, this action did not constitute 'parking'. In any event, it would be an implied term of the tenancy agreement that tenants should be able to park near the entrance temporarily, in order to transfer heavy or bulky items from the vehicle to the property, or vice versa.

5. The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement is the legal basis upon which the Defendant occupied the property. On the subject of parking, it states "...if keeping a car at the Property, not park so as to cause a nuisance or obstruction, or sound the car’s horn without due course, or rev the engine or slam the doors late at night...". The agreement does not specify any other conditions of parking, and the Defendant relies upon this contract as having primacy of contract over any purported contractual terms asserted by the Claimant's signage.

6. It is, therefore, denied that the Defendant was under any obligation to display a permit at any time, or to pay penalties to a third party (the Claimant) for non-display of same. There are a number of authorities which support this position.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have 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, who is not a party to the Tenancy Agreement, and has no proprietary interest in the land, has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

8. The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible and a driver would could not reasonably be expected to read and understand the terms of parking on entering the car park. The Defendant has photographic evidence, and a video of a vehicle entering the car park, which prove this point.

9. The Claimant has previously sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of varying amounts (£49, £26.65, £60). 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 changed from £149 to £126.65 to £149 to £160. This appears to be an attempt at adding costs with no legal basis, and an attempt at double recovery, in order to circumvent the Civil Procedure Rules.

10. The Claimant did not serve a compliant ‘Letter Before County Claim’, on the Defendant, as mandated by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Further to this, the Particulars of Claim as pleaded in the N1 Claim Form are extremely sparse, and do not disclose a proper Cause of Action, but instead offer a menu of choices. As such, the Particulars do not comply with CPR 16.4, and the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers.

11. If the Court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


....................................... ......................
(Defendant) (Date)

Akumo

Due to lack of information I am unsure as to the state of paragraph 5, I thnik that this should either be deleted entirely or reworded.

Any advice on the above please.

Is this more or less appropriate than the other defences I have posted?

Should I combine bits from one into the other, if so which parts?

Thank you in advance

Akumo.

Akumo

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESSS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:

UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

___________
DEFENCE
__________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. The Defendant was also the tenant of a property at the location at that time, and was issued with a permit for use within the car parking area.

3. On the material date, the Defendant stopped the vehicle at a convenient point close to the entrance of the building, for the purposes of loading and unloading.

4. On any reasonable construction, this action did not constitute 'parking'. In any event, it would be an implied term of the tenancy agreement that tenants should be able to park near the entrance temporarily, in order to transfer heavy or bulky items from the vehicle to the property, or vice versa.

5. [FONT=&quot]This has already been put forward and judged on in case law in the instance of Jopson V Homeguard.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

6. Wherein Jopson was unable to load or unload her vehicle due to lack of egress from the car park due to, amongst other things the size of the car parking spaces.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6.1 This case goes beyond the rights of owners and tenants and extends to visitors and delivery vehicles having a need to load or unload directly in front of communal areas.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
6.2 It was also established in this case that the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) does not apply to residential parking, and therefore the doctrine prohibiting an operator from imposing a penalty is still relevant.[/FONT]

7. Therefore, the charge in question is likely to be such a penalty unless there is found to be commercial justification (which, in a residential car park, is impossible) or it is found to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss (which is similarly implausible in a residential car park where the right to park is bestowed upon residents).

8. The Supreme Court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in the Beavis case as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Therefore, commercial justification for charging residents and their visitors to park in their own spaces is untenable and unconscionable.

9. There can be no legitimate interest in issuing charges to residents or their permitted visitors, and so the Beavis ‘test’ is not satisfied. Any such charge should be deemed a penalty.

10. It is, therefore, denied that the Defendant was under any obligation to display a permit at any time, or to pay penalties to a third party (the Claimant) for non-display of same. There are a number of authorities which support this position.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have 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, who is not a party to the Tenancy Agreement, and has no proprietary interest in the land, has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

12. The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible and a driver would could not reasonably be expected to read and understand the terms of parking on entering the car park. The Defendant has photographic evidence, and a video of a vehicle entering the car park, which prove this point.

13. The Claimant has previously sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of varying amounts (£49, £26.65, £60). 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 changed from £149 to £126.65 to £149 to £160. This appears to be an attempt at adding costs with no legal basis, and an attempt at double recovery, in order to circumvent the Civil Procedure Rules.

14. The Claimant did not serve a compliant ‘Letter Before County Claim’, on the Defendant, as mandated by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Further to this, the Particulars of Claim as pleaded in the N1 Claim Form are extremely sparse, and do not disclose a proper Cause of Action, but instead offer a menu of choices. As such, the Particulars do not comply with CPR 16.4, and the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers.

15. If the Court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


....................................... ......................
(Defendant) (Date)

Akumo

Anyone able to offer any help or advice please to this potential defence?

Thank you in advance

Akumo

claxtome

Akumo I have read your latest post in isolation and seems reasonable.
(just so you know someone has read it).

Others may have other comments.

Akumo

Claxtome thank you

I was just wanting some kind of confirmation to say yes or no and if no what needs to be changed.

So presumably I now need to set the correct formatting save as PDF and send as an email to ???
Will have to find the email address...

KeithP

In post #54, your para 6 followed on naturally from para 5.

Now that you have removed para 5, as seen in post #56, para 10 appears to be just the second half of a point.

I think the (old) para 5 should remain.
You certainly need something to show that there in no obligation in your tenancy agreement to display a permit.

claxtome

So presumably I now need to set the correct formatting save as PDF and send as an email to ???
Will have to find the email address...

When everyone has finished with comments.....
Ensure the PDF shows your signature (means you need access to a scanner).
Email to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk