PCM Ticket whilst parked outside a friends house visiting, do i pay?

Umkomaas

Here are screenshots of what they provided, do i need to amend my defence

Did the Judge also give you a timescale to respond to any new evidence provided by G's?

What you've posted we've seen before. Does anything in the revised PoC materially change anything in your current defence? If so, while I'm no expert, I'd contact the court to ask what your options are now.

can I actually win against this newly detailed charge?

Is there anything new in it? You can win, but you can lose. Only a judge can tell you if you win or lose. It's pure guesswork for anyone else. That's the lottery of the small claims court.

One things for sure, if you don't defend it, you definitely lose!

infernouk

Umkomaas wrote: »

Did the Judge also give you a timescale to respond to any new evidence provided by G's?

What you've posted we've seen before. Does anything in the revised PoC materially change anything in your current defence? If so, while I'm no expert, I'd contact the court to ask what your options are now.


Is there anything new in it? You can win, but you can lose. Only a judge can tell you if you win or lose. It's pure guesswork for anyone else. That's the lottery of the small claims court.

One things for sure, if you don't defend it, you definitely lose!

He gave me 14 days to amend my defence if needed but there isn't much new here just more fleshed out, if its useful gladstone have also taken action against everyone else in the house now for the same thing, same situations.

Umkomaas

there isn't much new here just more fleshed out

If there's nothing materially new then maybe nothing further to do - unless there is something that needs more fleshing out to correspond with their position now.

if its useful gladstone have also taken action against everyone else in the house now for the same thing, same situations.

I've not read back through the entire thread, but is this a new development not previously mentioned by you here? I don't think it's material to your case, but more of a passing interest in reasons/background. Best not to clog up or divert the thread with too much detail, but if the other residents of the house need help, they should each start a new thread of their own (if they haven't already done so).

infernouk

Yeah ill give it a read through later and decide if theres any new points i need to sufficiently cover. They are pursuing their cases with the same documents as me, may as well play gladstone at their own template game.

Would be interested ot hear any other users opinions too just so i am sure im taking the right approach here

Coupon-mad

I would add to your defence and include signed/dated witness statements from 'everyone else in the house' confirming that they have all been targeted for charges, despite their reasonable understanding that they already had rights to park (did their tenancy precede the arrival of PCM, it's hard to remember such a long thread, and did their AST give them parking rights? Remind us).

I think signed WS from the entire house, several adults, all stating that PCM are out of control at this location and that residents are seeking to have them removed (which surely they MUST be?!) would help show you as a legitimately parked visitor and 'innocent party' rather than the claimant having that (usually assumed) starting position.

I would also read the letters written by LoadsofChildren123 for hairray in his/her thread, taking time to read each paragraph of her arguments as LoC is legally qualified. See if you can stitch some of her sentences into your defence because LoC spells it out as regards the argument that a Managing Agent cannot impose onerous terms and charges on existing residents and their legitimate visitors.

Did their evidence not include a copy of the contract from the landowner?

Remind us how they know you were the driver, from an appeal early on?

[Deleted User]

Quite apart from the core elements of your Defence (which I do not revisit here) if the Particulars do correctly set out the signage and that is said to be their contract, it is worth noting that the sign says nothing about indemnity costs. I would seek to have that part of the Amended Particulars struck out (i.e. not just defended by you, but removed from their pleading). Further the signage and refers to may incur additional charges not will or shall, so I would argue that they were not agreed and that even under the contract, the maximum that could be sought is the £100 and £105 if you paid by credit card. Certainly there is no notional charge agreed (which could have easily been set out on the sign).

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would add to your defence and include signed/dated witness statements from 'everyone else in the house' confirming that they have all been targeted for charges, despite their reasonable understanding that they already had rights to park (did their tenancy precede the arrival of PCM, it's hard to remember such a long thread, and did their AST give them parking rights? Remind us).

I think signed WS from the entire house, several adults, all stating that PCM are out of control at this location and that residents are seeking to have them removed (which surely they MUST be?!) would help show you as a legitimately parked visitor and 'innocent party' rather than the claimant having that (usually assumed) starting position.

I would also read the letters written by LoadsofChildren123 for hairray in his/her thread, taking time to read each paragraph of her arguments as LoC is legally qualified. See if you can stitch some of her sentences into your defence because LoC spells it out as regards the argument that a Managing Agent cannot impose onerous terms and charges on existing residents and their legitimate visitors.

Did their evidence not include a copy of the contract from the landowner?

Remind us how they know you were the driver, from an appeal early on?

I thought witness statements were collected when the date was set and are submitted to the court? And yes the tenancy agreement makes zero mention and the permits arrived at a later date in the post with a letter declaring the situation for the whole house.

Their evidence was literally that sign and pics of my car, no further documentation and nothing to do with the land owner, nothing new. They dont know im the driver, never admitted, it must be another copy paste effort.

Ill take a look at the aforementioned thread and stitch them into my defence, could you clarify my query on the statement timing? Is there a specific format for the statements of can they just be brief statements that are signed and dated?

Johnersh wrote: »

Quite apart from the core elements of your Defence (which I do not revisit here) if the Particulars do correctly set out the signage and that is said to be their contract, it is worth noting that the sign says nothing about indemnity costs. I would seek to have that part of the Amended Particulars struck out (i.e. not just defended by you, but removed from their pleading). Further the signage and refers to may incur additional charges not will or shall, so I would argue that they were not agreed and that even under the contract, the maximum that could be sought is the £100 and £105 if you paid by credit card. Certainly there is no notional charge agreed (which could have easily been set out on the sign).

thanks i will add this into the defence and request what you say, you are correct that this is their only 'binding' documentation so anything invalid here is never superseded with correct or legitimate information elsewhere

infernouk

hey guys just wanted ot clarify i just send the amended defence at this point? i dont include witness statements (I've sorted them out now) until the court date is assigned?
Here is my full defence i plan to submit as final, does it look appropriate now?


1. The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being parked at the permission of a permitted resident.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

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.

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'.

5. 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. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

6. I believe the term 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. 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.

7. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. His Honour Charles Harris QC remarked in the Jopson appeal case decision that life in a resident’s block would be unworkable if visitors, delivery drivers etc. were expected to park immediately obtaining a permit (which a visitor would not have).

11. Even if the Court is minded to consider that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable 'grace period' time allowed for fetching it from the resident (which involves 4 flights of stairs and conversation) and there is no evidence that this time was allowed. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice.

12. Should the Court be satisfied that there is a potential cause of action, there are no road markings or bays etc.; this is not a car park, just an unmarked cul-de-sac street, the photos shown by this claimant merely show very poorly lit signs, which would have made it impossible for a driver to read terms or learn of the parking charge buried in unremarkable small print. It seems that it was pitch black, so unlike in the far more complex case of!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis![2015] UKSC 67, the driver cannot be bound by terms on a sign never seen, parking on an unmarked residential road. It is trite law on-street (had this been Council highway, where the TMA2004 applies as well as the Highway Code) that no markings suggest no restrictions.

13. So, if an operator wishes to fairly and prominently alert drivers to a parking charge and other onerous terms, they must mark the road and ensure the signs are clear, lit and in large lettering. Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' applies; a driver cannot be bound by terms not brought to his/her attention in the clearest way, such that the driver would be bound to have seen and read the terms and learnt of the 'parking charge'. This was certainly not the case.

14. Even if the court believes the signs were possible to see in the dark, the wording is prohibitive, it states you must display a permit to park, forbidding parking otherwise. It is therefore unable to offer a legitimate contract allowing parking for £100 if the driver decides to park. As Seen in PCM vs Bull (2016) where PCM used similar signage and the verdict summarised that all the sign is essentially saying is “you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass”, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. This verdict has been reached in regard to PCM signage of this nature at numerous other claim hearings, IPC signage does not create a contract as the notice is forbidding.

15. In the case the court finds the signage to be a legitimate contract, the particulars show no mention of indemnity costs and they should be struck from the claim. The signage states “may incur additional charges”, rather than “will” or “shall” hence the terms were not agreed explicitly even in an alleged contract. There is no notional charge agreed, which could easily have been set out correctly in the signage if its alleged intent was to form a contract.

16. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

17. 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.


18. Several other occupants of the property have received claims from Gladstone on behalf of PCM, with the exact same particulars and ‘robo’ nature of this claim. This should above all else highlight how out of control PCM are at this location and their intent to abuse legal systems to extort payment from anyone they can catch in their trap. One permit owning tenant has two active claims for parking within 10 meters of his own front door with his partner having an additional claim too, four active claims against residents and their partners. There is reasonable understanding we have the right to park outside the house in a non obstructive manner (evidence of adhering to this is apparent in the claimant’s particulars) regardless of permits. There is no mention of the ‘parking scheme’ in the signed tenancy agreement. As a resident the aforementioned tenant has provided a statement in aid of this claim (to be submitted in full at the appropriate stage), extracts include “it makes it impossible to have visitors” and “The company is out of control and target residents who they have no legitimate interest in ticketing and refuse to cancel tickets”. The whole PCM parking scheme in this location should be put under investigation and legal scrutiny to prevent further waste of courts time going forward, of which it is clear the claimant intends to do from the pattern outlined here.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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''.

Coupon-mad

I would make this point #1 and break it up, and add to it (hat tip to LoadsofChildren123) as shown:


1. As allowed by the court, this is my updated defence, having read the new particulars emailed to me by Gladstones, setting out baseless points purportedly in support of the Claimant's claim. The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being parked at the permission of a permitted resident.

1.1 Several other occupants of the property have received claims from Gladstones on behalf of PCM, with carbon copy particulars, disclosing the automated ‘robo-claim' nature of this operation.

1.2 It is averred that PCM are out of control at this location and their intent to abuse legal systems to extort payment from anyone they can catch in their trap. PCM are ex-clampers and their current business model is no better. One permit-owning tenant has two active claims for parking within 10 meters of his own front door with his partner having an additional claim too; so I am personally aware of four active claims against residents and their partners. This Claimant will know the extent of the cash-cow operation they currently have, milking residents without any genuine intention to 'manage parking' nor to provide any service to residents.

1.3 This Claimant has no 'legitimate interest' nor commercial justification for seeking a sum significantly above any possible damages claim and they cannot rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; indeed the findings at the Supreme Court expose this business model as exactly the type of unjustified parking charge which falls foul of Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty and will be unrecoverable.

1.4 There is reasonable understanding we have the right to park in a non obstructive manner (evidence of adhering to this is apparent in the claimant’s particulars) regardless of permits. The Managing Agent and leasehold owner covenanted to give residents uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the property.

1.5 There is no mention of any ‘parking scheme’ in the signed tenancy agreement, nor any charges for parking. At a later date well after the tenants had moved in and were enjoying their property rights (including an unfettered right to park) a letter arrived out of the blue with 'permits' but there was no contract, no meeting of minds, and the claimant cannot re-offer parking rights as if it were consideration, on more onerous terms than before, when this right is already enjoyed by residents and their visitors.

1.6 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 park by residents who have primacy of contract and who are - by virtue of their tenancy rights - in possession at this location.

1.7 As a resident, the aforementioned tenant has provided a statement in aid of this claim (to be submitted in full at the appropriate stage), extracts include “it makes it impossible to have visitors” and “The company is out of control and target residents who they have no legitimate interest in ticketing and refuse to cancel tickets”.

1.8 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.

1.9 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 (always extendable to legitimate visitors, as in my case) and may simply be fetching a permit from the adjacent premises during the short period of minutes taken for PCM to pounce with a 'charge' on a hastily-issued 'PCN'.

1.10 Even if the introduction of a new parking system falls within the gift of the landowner, no clause in any resident's agreement gives the Managing Agent (or this Claimant, being a stranger to the tenancy terms) any right to impose upon residents and their legitimate visitors, a contractual relationship with a third party. Nor does the Managing Agent, nor this Claimant have a right to levy a specific set 'parking charge' which is separate and additionally imposed (without formal variation of contract being agreed) to the agreed Service Charges/Letting/Rent fees.

1.11 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”.

1.12 The entire PCM parking 'scheme' at this location should be put under investigation and legal scrutiny to prevent further waste of the Court's time, going forward. This is exactly the type of claim that should be struck out by UK Courts and punitive costs be awarded, due to the vexatious and wholly unreasonable behaviour of this Claimant and their Solicitors; the latter not coming to this matter with clean hands, since Gladstones are run by the same two Directors as run the Trade Body which enables rogue parking firms like PCM to continue to operate in this way (publicised by BBC Watchdog, among other articles exposing this Claimant's 'rogue/no appeals' business model).

infernouk

thanks I will post this off today, having read through it its much more concise!