Court Summons

Fruitcake

barry22 wrote: »

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?

No, it's completely the opposite as already mentioned by Kind of Irritated. It is a winning defence point. No mention of parking in the lease means there are no restrictions, limitations, or contractual need to display a permit.

The PPC cannot say you need to display a permit if it is not mentioned in your lease. A third party cannot add on terms and conditions to a contract between you and your landlord that does not mention the need for a permit.

That's what a judge said in one of the recent cases that I'm sure has been mentioned already in this thread.

Kind_Of_Irritated

I'm certainly planning to use this no mention of parking/no contract angle in my defense in my own case. And I am not a resident but was just visiting my son (a resident). My permit (not on show on that particular occasion) seems to be exactly like my son's.

This may even be another valid legal point, since, of course, I am not a resident thus did not agree to the tenancy agreement (with or without mention of parking).

Coupon-mad

Just a gentle reminder that this is barry22's thread for his case which differs from any other.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Yes, Coupon-mad I realise that. It's just that I learn a lot from looking at other links and so I thought others might benefit from some of my thoughts too. (Mostly all gleaned from this site).

barry22

Again, thank you for your assistance! I will work on my defense over the weekend and post it here for your appraisal.

In regard to CtC's abuse of data protection; I read on another thread that the landowner is ultimately responsible for the actions of its agents. If this is the case would I be able to sue my landlord (also my employer) for the data infringement?

I informed them today that their agent appears to have acted illegally but they seemed unconcerned.

Coupon-mad

Yes we think you could, since this seminal case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/311.html

''The judge held there were serious issues to be tried (a) that the claimants' claims for compensation under section 13 of the DPA did not require proof of pecuniary loss; and therefore that there was a good arguable claim for compensation under that section;''

barry22

[FONT=&quot]Claim Number: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Statement of Defence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no valid assignment of debt in the form of a signed Deed of Assignment pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent of such evidence, the Claimant has no cause of action. The Deed of Assignment (Annexure A) and Letter Before Action copies (Annexure are unsigned with the same barcode header, which may indicate both were produced by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no interest in any purported original contract and it is submitted that the Deed of Assignment is champertous.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant’s original claim form does not contain a signature that meets the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules Part 22 and Practice Direction 22 which state a statement of truth must ‘where a document is to be verified on behalf of a company or other corporation…be signed by a person holding a senior position in the company or corporation.’ [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant's statement of truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Capital 2 Coast Parking Management) to be assigned[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner (***** ******) not the operator, nor the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant’s right to park is by virtue of a tenancy agreement with the Landowner. As such even if it could be proven the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement, the Operator had no capacity to offer a contract with the Defendant. Nor was the Operator able to unilaterally alter the contract between the Defendant and Landowner, by restricting the right to park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant neither confirms nor denies being the driver of the alleged offence. It is therefore for the Claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]established by the issue of compliant documents, in[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no right to assert that the Defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and Barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort' (p.12 POPLA Annual Report 2015).[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt and as such is put to strict proof that a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 exists. Absent of such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a valid Deed of Assignment were to exist, the Claimant has no interest in, or privy to any purported original contract and it is submitted that the Deed of Assignment is champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant is to put to proof that the Operator had sufficient interest in the land or that there were specific terms in the contract between the Landowner and Operator to entitle the Operator to bring an action on its own behalf as required in the British Parking Association’s Legislation Guidance to Operators.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Case law in recent years suggests without such proof the Claimant has no locus standi to initiate legal proceedings. ParkingEye Ltd. v Sharma, 3QT62646, Brentford CC, 23/10/2013 examined the contract between the Landowner and Claimant and dismissed the Claimant’s case as the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land. It followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has not disclosed whether its case is one of breach of contract or breach of license.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a breach of contract is being alleged, the Defendant submits there was no valid contract between the Operator and the Defendant. The only contract in existence is between the Landowner and the Defendant in the form of a tenancy agreement. The rules pertaining to parking restrictions are contained within Clause 3.16 of the tenancy agreement (Annexure D). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The tenancy agreement places a number of restrictions on residents who park their vehicles on the premises. The displaying of a permit is not one of the restrictions contained within the agreement. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having spoken to the Landowner at the time of receiving correspondence from the Operator pertaining to the need to display a permit, the Defendant was assured his right to park had not been further restricted and he was able to continue to park without displaying a permit as his vehicle details were kept by the Landowner and could be identified as belonging to a tenant of the premises. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The tenancy agreement is not able to be unilaterally altered by the Operator. Additional restrictions on parking must be made by a party to the original contact not a third party. In Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N, C6GF14F0, Croydon CC, 16/09/2016 this was reaffirmed by District Judge Coonan who dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Operator erected signage at the premises following the issuing of permits which attempted to form a contract with motorists (Annexure E). However, given the advice the Defendant had received from the Landowner as well as the Landowner’s signage at the premises stating ‘Parking for ***** Court Residents Only’, the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Operator’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to residents but was to deter non-residents by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty, Case No. 3YK50188, Luton CC, 21/02/2014 which was decided by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is submitted the Operator’s management of the site was to enforce the Landowner’s restriction to stop non-residents from utilising the parking facilities not to target residents exercising their right to park outside their premises.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the Claimant is basing the claim on a breach of a licence, as opposed to breach of contract, the offence would be one of trespass and could only be pursued by the land-owner.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant disputes the Claimant has incurred £50 in ‘Administration and Collection fees’ as stated in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant draws the Court’s attention to the judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd. v Ibbotson, 1SE09849 S!!!!horpe CC, 16/05/2012 which stated that only the costs directly resulting from the alleged parking infringement may be included in the claim, and not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. The Claimant is to put to proof a breakdown of the ‘Administrative and Collection fees’ referred to in the Particulars of Claim. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Given the above points, the Court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, merely buying sets of photographs from parking firms for as little as £1, with the aim of inflating any damages for this Claimant's own profit. This claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in cases where they have no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation with no evidence nor any particulars that could give rise to a claim in law. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the court chooses not to strike out the claim, the Defendant invites the court to order the Operator to be added as a party to the claim. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this defence are true [/FONT]

Redx

cant see anything about the COA Jopson case about tenants rights , nor about "the right to peaceful enjoyment" and being free of harassment

read the recent pranksters blog which sets it all out , with cases and case numbers

and yes I know its a MIL case bought from C2C, so you may have the right to counter claim due to the DPA once this alleged debt was sold to MIL by C2C ( £750 comes to mind )

Coupon-mad

as my car usually has a roof cover on it, I had been assured by my landlord that as my vehicle details were held on file all would be fine.

Sounds like a strong argument re 'derogation from grant' and so the Jopson appeal case & Saeed v Plustrade Ltd can be used.

You have the primacy of contract and a third party parking firm can't interfere with your lease, nor can they assign (or pretend to assign) the 'charge' to an unrelated party due to a DPA breach and DVLA KADOE breach.

Have you got the original PCN?

What's the company number on the bottom of it? Never mind the sign, what company number is on the PCN?

barry22

Hi, company name is one parking ltd.