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

infernouk

I have worked a defence out of the bigsej post as you outlined Coupon-mad. I should note my local court is potentially st albans where you mention the precedent was set

I have removed point 1 to protect data and question if point 11 is relevant, other than that I have removed the multiple claim statements and a couple of others relating to the taxation. Is there anything else i should add or modify?

2) The vehicle has a resident's permit and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.

3) 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.

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

5) 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.

6) 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/dates 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'.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

10) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12) The claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

13) Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

14) In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

15) 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.

16) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than this claim). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

17) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

18) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

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) 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.

23) 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.

24) 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''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Half_way

All seems OK to me, although i would wait for a few more second opinions.
Also you may wish to cross post this onto pepipoo to get a wider audience.
You should also be looking into counter claiming, or setting up a counter claim for a possible DPA breach

infernouk

Half_way wrote: »

All seems OK to me, although i would wait for a few more second opinions.
Also you may wish to cross post this onto pepipoo to get a wider audience.
You should also be looking into counter claiming, or setting up a counter claim for a possible DPA breach

thanks i wasnt sure if my explanation of the story had come across well as i thought this would be a difficult situation to defend. I will cross post as i have just made an account there

infernouk

anyone free to offer some more insight as advised? Much appreciated if possible!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine so far and the defence is a work in progress as you are not there yet, you are only responding to a LBCCC and that letter is fine. Expect the machine that is Gladstones to stutter on, though, to issue a claim.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks fine so far and the defence is a work in progress as you are not there yet, you are only responding to a LBCCC and that letter is fine. Expect the machine that is Gladstones to stutter on, though, to issue a claim.

thanks for the confirmation I will send that response, and yes ive read so many threads, spent all day on it, and fully expect to see this go to claim i just pray im defendable as im a little doubtful how easy it will be! but you guys definitely know what your doing so im relying on that as well as the wealth of info already around here. I will post the letter tomorrow and post back when i receive my notice of claim so I can work further on the piece above. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Read Gin and Milk's success in court this morning, or jollymonkeys' success last month, or Stuart Hamilton's success last week and spaceman8's success on the same day! All started off like you, some of them thought they'd lose. I didn't.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Read Gin and Milk's success in court this morning, or jollymonkeys' success last month, or Stuart Hamilton's success last week and spaceman8's success on the same day! All started off like you, some of them thought they'd lose. I didn't.

i will search the usernames tomorrow! Its more just the whole thing that if they stick to 'you needed the permit and didnt have the permit visible' i dont see how it can be debated, im sure you guys know the way though

Coupon-mad

It's more about the primacy of contract of the friend's lease/tenancy agreement which may mean the permit scheme is academic, can't vary rights under the friend's lease/agreement which may mean visitors cars are entitled to pass and re-pass and access the property when authorised by a tenant:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Read that to understand the legal arguments and ask the friend to dig out his lease, AST and the paperwork/email that came with the permits. Especially good if the intention of the scheme is to deter trespassers (you were not a trespasser and parking firms can't sue for trespass anyway).

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's more about the primacy of contract of the friend's lease/tenancy agreement which may mean the permit scheme is academic, can't vary rights under the friend's lease/agreement which may mean visitors cars are entitled to pass and re-pass and access the property when authorised by a tenant:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Read that to understand the legal arguments and ask the friend to dig out his lease, AST and the paperwork/email that came with the permits. Especially good if the intention of the scheme is to deter trespassers (you were not a trespasser and parking firms can't sue for trespass anyway).

Thanks i get what you mean (its my girlfriends house by the way rather than friend!) she has sent me her tenancy agreement which seems to make zero references to the street, cars, parking, permits, anything, when the houses were built it was a free parking zone with no restriction, PCM swooped in and implemented the scheme with their signs and permits that they send with letters to every house. I have a pic of the PCM letter I will post here for you which came with the permits.

FYI the primary reason the scheme exists is its the closest parking to the university and they want to deter students from using the residential area as free parking, it has no valid reason to attack residents and legitimate visitors. I should further point out that 5 adults live in the house, yet PCM grant only 2 permits, so technically deny 3 people in the house the right to park near the house they pay rent for further straining this situation as we have to coordinate parking among everyone in the house

Here is a link to the 2015-2016 letter for permits, there is a 2016-2017 one i didnt realise this wasnt that one, but i seem to remember the wording is exactly the same but with the dates changes, will get a pic of that one too if needed.

http://imgur.com/HwlLqBs