Court Summons

Coupon-mad

barry22 wrote: »

Hi, I've just tried to register on moneyclaims.gov to acknowledge the claim but their system is playing up so I'll post the form tomorrow, just disputing and signing as advised. I'm in Hampshire by the way, and should I be posting here or under another thread?

NO. We didn't tell you to defend the claim in a rush and lose and the above sounds like you are planning to dispute it/put in a defence right now? no.

Acknowledge the claim (only) exactly as explained by bargepole in the link in the NEWBIES thread. This is not your defence, do not grab defeat from the jaws of victory by putting something weak on a form which should remain BLANK at the time of AoS.

Maybe that's what you meant? If so then good, just do the AoS leaving the defence box blank. Then come back and read up on defences.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks for that Parking Prankster link, The Deep. No, I hadn't seen it before. Very useful. My son's tenancy agreement has no mention whatsoever about the parking, either for him & other residents or for their visitors.

My own situation is that I possess a car parking permit, as all residents like my son are given one each for their families (small families!) But my permit was not showing on that 20/30 minute period I was visiting my son. This was explained to Link Parking and to Gladstones AND the Management Committee Secretary was also informed. This is what Parking Prankster says on this:

"Responsible parking companies will either use a modern system which does not need paper permits, or will cancel charges accidentally given to residents or their guests."

Mine should have fallen into the "accidentally given" category. We have had no real support from the Management Company on this though.

Another interesting aspect to this case is how little the Defendant actually spoke.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

But this case has raised another issue for me: I believe I possess exactly the same sort of parking permit my son (the resident) has. Yet I have taken out no tenancy agreement or parking contract with anyone about anything to do with parking there.

:beer: Cheers for that link, The Deep. As I say above - very useful.:T

Coupon-mad

Seen today's case?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner_2.html

All these claim numbers assist you both (but this is barry22's thread).

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you, coupon-mad. I now have about 50 pages of useful stuff to while away the dark winter evenings for the next two weeks until I reply to the court. :cool:

barry22

Hello, would I be right in thinking that I need to ascertain if my landlord has given express permission for the parking management company to take legal action in their own name, or through a 3rd party, namely MIL?


My original thought for my defense was that no monetary loss has been incurred by either my landlord or the parking management company. Would this be insufficient reason?

I have only ticked the box stating "I intend to defend all of this claim" and signed and dated the form.

Again, thank you for your assistance.

Coupon-mad

My original thought for my defense was that no monetary loss has been incurred by either my landlord or the parking management company. Would this be insufficient reason?

It's a hopeless and 100% losing defence point! Bin it. Read the ParkingEye v Beavis case decision to understand why.

You need to read current MIL defences like the one I told you to read; I am afraid that MIL defences need to talk in legalese to an extent and you will need to learn some new definitions of words (well I did). Plus you can add the point about the DVLA data not being possible to be sold to a third party, as it is against the KADOE contract - plus all the usual defence points you will find used recently in MIL cases.

I have only ticked the box stating "I intend to defend all of this claim" and signed and dated the form.

Good, so search this board for the simple keyword : MIL. I already mentioned cueball's thread but there are others.

barry22

hxxp://s377.photobucket.com/user/barry2211/library/

barry22

Wow! Having read up about MIL I can't believe they haven't been shut down.

I checked my tenancy agreement and no mention is made of residential parking so that line of defense is a no go, although there is a separate sign at the entrance to the carpark saying "for residents only" so would that help or would it be better to go with champerty?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Not sure if this is correct. Surely no mention in tenancy agreement = no contract re parking?

barry22 wrote: »

I checked my tenancy agreement and no mention is made of residential parking so that line of defense is a no go...

Coupon-mad

I agree with you, Kind of Irritated.

It is worth stating that 'no mention in tenancy agreement = no contract re parking' and that there is a separate sign at the entrance to the car park saying "for residents only" which is evidence of consideration flowing from the landowner/managing agent to residents who are thus allowed to park.

This is reasonable to conclude since it is in keeping with the lease/tenancy agreement which is silent about charges for parking in that car park and allows residents peaceful enjoyment, easements and rights of way which a third party cannot interfere with, let alone build an extremely shaky case based upon mere photographs which they then unlawfully sell to a litigious and completely unrelated party, namely MIL.

Then you should add the claim numbers & brief summary of the two relevant cases posted by the Parking Prankster this week which support the view that residents may have a right to park that supersedes any later attempt by a third party to alter the lease/agreement unilaterally when they were not even a party to it in the first place.

And that the parking company's only 'legitimate interest' was to deter random people parking who were not residents. Any pursuit of residents is punitive and unconscionable...etc. And completely avoidable in this day and age, no need to use paper permits at all, no reason to pass the burden to the consumer to prove every day that they are allowed to park there, and then a lurking attendant waits to one day catch them with £100 on an odd occasion when the permit slips (even though the car is known and has been there every day!). Or one day a person might swap cars with a family member or be using a courtesy car etc., all normal daily life matters, none of which justifies a third party with no business to interfere with the tenant, penalising them when they are merely involved in normal activity in their own home.

And all the usual stuff used in MIL defences on top! Champerty & Maintenance of course - and questioning the authenticity of the purported 'assignment' - and adducing all the MIL cases already struck out and the Judge who, when dismissing the claim, said that it boiled down to 'Mil purchased some photographs'! And mention the new FOI request in the public domain (blogged again by the Parking Prankster) which confirms that the DVLA disallows the selling of data on to third parties without their prior agreement.