COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM (UKCPM, Gladstones)

CircusFrog

Hi,

I've received a Claim Form from Gladstones Solicitors on behalf of UK Car Park Management Limited for three PCNs in November 2015.

They're charging £150 per PCN - rounded to '£483.52 including £33.52 interest' + £35 Court Fee + £50 legal representative's fee.

I did the wrong thing at the time and ignored the PCN and subsequent letters completely.

The car park is a car permit car park, and I have a valid permit (as a resident), but I didn't have the permit on display (lost it!).

I'm not sure I have much to go on if the PCNs are about the no permit display, but I don't have the original notices to be able to review exactly what they were about.

The car park where I live is overcrowded, and sometimes I don't even park in a recognised bay, but have been ignoring the PCNs since probably 2014.

If there's nothing to appeal with regards to the PCNs themselves, can I appeal the 'Legal Representative's fee of £50 at least?

A bigger concern I have here is that this £568.52 is probably less than a tenth of the number of PCNs my wife and I have had outside of our own house and ignored in the last 2 years. Is there an option to discuss some sort of settlement with CPM that covers all of them - I'm not sure I want to bring it up.


I'm ready to apply for the extension, but need to know if I even have a defense worth submitting first - being a permit holder, I'm not sure that I do?

Quentin

Acknowledging the claim won't prejudice anything at all.

It just gets you an extra 14 days to decide on the best way to deal with this

CircusFrog

Quentin wrote: »

Acknowledging the claim won't prejudice anything at all.

It just gets you an extra 14 days to decide on the best way to deal with this

Thanks Quentin, I've acknowledged the service now and asked for the extra 14 days.

Redx

now read the court section of the NEWBIES sticky thread, especially read the links to the bargepole threads, and parking pranksters court guide

and read parking pranksters blogsite , especially the latest blog about tenancy rights and associated failures by parking companies

The_Deep

PPCs are being caned in court at present over "own space" claims. Read some of The Parking Prankster's recent blogs.

You most certainly can "out" the £50 they add on, they know that this is not allowed but try it on as many of the sheeple pay up. Read this

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are a handful of solicitors who appear to be demanding monies to which they/their clients have no entitlement. BW Legal, Wright Hassle, SCS, Miah, and Gladstones among them. Some of the cases they are pursuing are very old, some pre-dating POFA, and totally without merit as they should only be pursuing the driver, not the keeper. They will often lie that there is a legal precedent, Elliott v Loake, which allow them to do this. This is a lie.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lose a parking claim in a County Court and a PPC is unlikely to be awarded more than £200, made up as follows, parking charge, £100, solicitor's fees £50, court fees £25-£35, and a few pounds in interest. All of them only payable if a judge says so. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]These solicitors know that their demands are unlawful but continue to demand these excessive charges because the can, because people see a solicitor's name on the letterhead, read the dire warnings they propogate, often misleadingly, and are intimidated into paying up.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What they may not know is that after hundreds of complaints, the solicitors regulatory body is investigating and you should, where you receive such a letter, copy it to the SRA with a complaint that they may be trying to defraud you.. Write to Duncan Allen here.[/FONT]


http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page

Coupon-mad

I've added a link in the NEWBIES thread 'Small Claim?' section, showing the Prankster's summary of all the arguments and case law that can be used in a defence where a PCN was issued in a 'home' residential car park.

To find November examples of defences including some of those cases, search the forum for 'Jopson' or 'derogation from grant'.

These are fast becoming as (potentially) easy to defend as Gladstones or BW Legal cases. And lend themselves to residents suing for damages afterwards or as a counter claim. We need to drive parking firms out of residential car parks. They are not there to deter rogue parker trespassers (there are very few such people at most locations, truth be told).

These nasty firms are there to make money from residents and their visitors and it is NOT ON.

CircusFrog

Hi all,

Having looked at Prankster's advice, I think I might have a case in line with the case law about overriding a tenant's agreement.

From Parking Prankster:

In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.

Case Law:

• In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
• In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

The Lease
In the lease, there are two clauses that reference parking.

The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated.

and

Not to park or allow to stand any vehicle of any description (including motor cycle or scooter) nor any caravan on the accessways and footpaths show on the Plan and not to obstruct or hinder free access over any accessway shown cached or cross hatched black on the Plan.

It seems like the first of these clauses gives me a solid contract that would need to be explicitly overwritten by two parties?

Introduction of UK CPM

There's a letter from the property management company that states that "a new parking scheme has been put in place at [development]", There's no mention of the lease or any clauses or conditions of tenancy, just

If the conditions set out in the introduction letter [from UK CPM] are not followed then you will be ticketed.

and ending with:

I trust that you find the above satisfactory, however, should you have any further queries with reference to the above please do not hesitate to contact me on the above telephone number.

The particulars of the claim

The claim from UK CPM’s solicitors (Gladstones) lists three reference numbers, but I don’t have the original notices to know what in particular I’m being fined for. Given that the fines were only either for not displaying a permit, or parking on the road outside of a designated bay - I think the defence that there is no contract, and therefore no authority for UK CPM should be sufficient. It might be worth requesting a copy of the particular fines anyway so that I know precisely what I’m defending against though?



I'd appreciate some thoughts on this; if these seems like a good direction to go in with the defense, if so, I'll look into the case law here and write it up!

Coupon-mad

Yes, but you've missed the (more important) Appeal case law I pointed you to.

Appeal cases are persuasive on the lower courts.

CircusFrog

I'm just working on the draft defense, including references to the appeals cases, and I just realised that my defense relies on the lease, which is in my name, even though this case is actually brought against my wife (I've been using the first person for ease). Is it still the same defense?

CircusFrog

Here's the first draft of the main argument in the defense. The others are merely there for backup - the Lease is the big one.

i. As a resident of ****, the lease grants me the right to park one private domestic vehicle in any free parking space.

1. It is asserted that the Lease with ************************** for the property **************** grants me the right to park on ****************.

2. Specifically, clause X of the Lease states:
“[The lessor grants the lessee] The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated.

3. It is asserted that signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in CS038 Jopson vs Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”

4. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract, and it seems to me that the same principle applies here.”

5. Accordingly, I assert that the Claimant has made no attempt to amend the terms of the Lease or to have them amended by the management company, **************************.

6. The case law in this regard is strong: the terms of a tenancy agreement cannot be amended by the displaying of a sign.

CircusFrog

Updated Draft. I need to get this to the court by the 23rd December, so want to send it off today if possible. Feedback greatly appreciated!


The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, for the following reason:

i. As a resident of [****], the lease grants me the right to park one private domestic vehicle in any free parking space.

i. As a resident of [****], the lease grants me the right to park one private domestic vehicle in any free parking space.

1. It is asserted that the Lease with [*****] Management for the property [******] grants me the right to park on [****].

2. Specifically, clause X of the Lease states:
“[The lessor grants the lessee] The right in common with all others entitled thereto from time to time to park one domestic private motor vehicle only on the Estate in any free parking space other than those specifically allocated or to be allocated.

3. The sign placed on the property by UK CPM states:
“Terms of parking without permission: You do so at your own risk to property and personal injury and you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee.”

4. The terms of the Lease on my residence give me permission to park on this private property, therefore I was parking with permission, just not UK CPM’s permission.

5. It is asserted that signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in CS038 Jopson vs Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”


6. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract, and it seems to me that the same principle applies here.”


7. Accordingly, I assert that the Claimant has made no attempt to amend the terms of the Lease or to have them amended by the management company, [*****] Management.


8. The case law in this regard is strong: the terms of a tenancy agreement cannot be amended by the displaying of a sign.

Solicitors’ Costs

9. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Solicitor’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s solicitor can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant, generating over £1.5 million a year in profit. 


10. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging. 


11. The defendant therefore puts the claimant strictly to proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, that work was done by the litigant’s expert staff to the value of £50.

The above points will be explained fully in the Witness Statement, and Skeleton Argument,!which I shall serve not later than 14 days before the date of any hearing.!