Court Claim Form - Advice on how best to proceed - interesting situation!

Loadsofchildren123

CPR rule 20.5 - you need the court's leave to add a party.
The application can be made without notice. The court will then give directions about service and a timetable for serving a reply/defence to the counterclaim.

So you have to make an application. An application is made on form N244.

Trouble is, the fee for an application is £255 which is out of all proportion to the claim.

The court does have the power to dispense with a formal application notice - Rule 23.3(2)(b). So you could try writing to the court now (playing dumb as a litigant in person) with a draft of the counterclaim and asking if the court will join the MA as a party. Explain why the MA needs to be a party in the covering letter. Then cross your fingers that the court will make the order in the absence of a formal application. Trouble is the court might ignore it, take too long or say no. If you choose this option and miss the deadline, just file the defence/c'claim against the Claimant on time and deal with this afterwards by way of asking the court's permission to amend the counterclaim and add a 2nd Defendant.

Or just issue the application, but do so now and point out that the order is urgent because of the 7 March deadline and the court can make the order without any notice to the 2nd Defendant. If you win of course you'll get the £255 fee back.

Hope that helps.

Loadsofchildren123

My post #21 on the issue of their trespass. I have come across the case on a Bargepole blog:


In Davey v UKPC MR Davey sued UKPC for trespass for placing tickets on his vehicle which was parked on his own land. He won the case and was awarded £150 damages for trespass and £1280.26 in costs.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Acidmonkey

safarmuk wrote: »

The sole reason for asking is to see if, by any chance, you are on the same estate as another estate I am dealing with that have the same problem.

We know that the MA does have the ability to cancel tickets, in the case above they chose not to because it appears they perhaps didn't want the bother of managing problems like this or didn't think these problems would occur. However this is not the MA's right to make this call, if they contract someone they are responsible for their behaviour, especially if it is not in the benefit of the residents.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

To add MA as a party you really need to send them a formal LBC as per the Practice Direction.

In this case because of your time constraints and your previous contact with them, you could justify giving them a short time to respond. Explain in the LBC about the other proceedings and the time limit for filing the defence and counterclaim, explain the claim, produce your core documents etc and say you need a reply by X date otherwise you will have to include them in the counterclaim. Refer to your previous dealings with them and say that they are of course already familiar with the matter.

That will avoid them complaining you haven't complied.

Should put the cat amongst the pidgys.

Thanks for the fantastic advice. Have just received a rather bewildering response from the MA regarding my request for them to cancel the ticket and court claim. It think I might just have to bite the bullet, issue an LBC and pay to add them to the claim. Should I respond the MA's reply below?

"The parking enforcement has been on site since xxxxx, your parking permit was hand delivered to you on xxxxxx, since then you have been informed of the parking enforcement across the site on multiple occasions and the rules that need to be adhered to to ensure correct use of the parking spaces.

If you had an issue with the parking enforcement on site may I ask why it has taken till now to inform us.

By all means if you wish to put forward a counter claim please do so, however we do not get involved in parking ticket claims.

If you wish to be removed from the parking enforcement on the site please let us know and we will remove you, however be advised if you do so then UK CPM will not be able ticket individuals from parking in your bay which may cause more grievances to yourself.

Please let us know how you wish to proceed."

safarmuk

If it was me I would wish to be removed from the parking enforcement and simultaneously get permission to install a fold down bollard that you can lock with a number combination padlock. That way nobody can park in your bay period (unless you give them the combination) as opposed to someone still actually being able to park in your bay - inconveniencing you - but making £60 for a 3rd party ...

The MA should simply cancel this - the parking enforcement is not designed to cost residents ££'s ... it's meant to stop people not authorized to park in your estate from parking in your estate. I'd remind them of this.

Coupon-mad

I agree with safarmuk, and the folding parking post would stop any rogue PPC from using your bay as a free-for-all space to make your life hell. I would put nothing past this greedy bullyboy industry.

Loadsofchildren123

That's an interesting proposal - it seems to me that they are conceding something there, but I'm not sure what!


I agree with the others that I'd remove myself/my space from the PPC's supposed powers. Not sure if your wife has the power to install a bollard - she owns the leasehold title to the flat and the space, but not the freehold, so not sure if she has rights to install anything which would involve interfering with the surface. However, in practical terms if she does it and puts any damage right (which she would by the proper installation of a bollard) then I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid (the work would be done before anyone could complain).


Have you sent them an LBC? Your reply to the rest of this letter would depend on whether you have. Assuming you have:


Dear Sirs,


Thank you for your letter of x.


I had not complained before now about the parking enforcement because [PPC name] had not interfered with my ownership of/rights to the parking space, as they are doing now. The timing of my complaint has no effect on the fact that my rights are being interfered with and I am suffering loss as a result.


In entering into a contract with [PPC] you have interfered with my rights, including my right to peaceful enjoyment. You have sought to impose obligations upon me which you have no right to impose. As you have been unwilling or unable to take steps to have the charges withdrawn, I have had to involve you in this matter. I will be applying to join you as a party to the proceedings because it is my view that the liability to pay any charges due is yours, not mine.


Thank you for asking if I would like the space removed from the PPC's powers. I confirm that I do, and I would like it removed with immediate effect.


Yours faithfully etc.


However - a point that's just occurred to me - you are not the leaseholder. Your wife is. The PPC is pursuing you. But you do live there and you are married, so you share your wife's rights to peaceful enjoyment and her rights to the space. I'm just concerned about you coming unstuck on this particular point, they may say that your rights derive from your wife, you have no direct rights against the MA because you are not the owner of the leasehold, so this claim is actually against your wife, not against the MA (although if this was the case, your wife would then have a claim against the MA).


Has anyone else got anything to add on this last point?

Acidmonkey

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Have you sent them an LBC? Your reply to the rest of this letter would depend on whether you have. Assuming you have:

I've sent the LBC to them today via email and post in both our names. The issue is that the court claim is addressed to me only. Can the counterclaim include my wife? Unsure on the process of adding my wife as a party to the counterclaim - not entirely sure she wants to get stuck into this with the same vigour, if she was in my position, she would have paid them off to keep them quiet - she has no appetite for this toing and froing.

Agreed, it could be an issue, but I'm hoping after receiving the LBC they might just wake up and cancel the ticket...

Coupon-mad

No there is no need to add your wife to the counterclaim because it would be you saying your data has been misappropriated and misused, contrary to the DPA Principles. I can write something for you at the weekend and have previous ones I can look back at.

However - a point that's just occurred to me - you are not the leaseholder. Your wife is. The PPC is pursuing you. But you do live there and you are married, so you share your wife's rights to peaceful enjoyment and her rights to the space. I'm just concerned about you coming unstuck on this particular point, they may say that your rights derive from your wife, you have no direct rights against the MA because you are not the owner of the leasehold, so this claim is actually against your wife, not against the MA (although if this was the case, your wife would then have a claim against the MA).

Has anyone else got anything to add on this last point?

This doesn't matter, your household as residents enjoy the rights and easements granted under the lease. We had a case won (not a counter claim though) where I recall writing the defence off-forum, where his wife was the resident on the lease and he was the defendant. He just showed his wife's lease & explained who she was (could even include a signed/dated witness statement from her, confirming you are both residents and she is your wife and her rights under the lease are also granted to you. And confirming that the demised space is for either of you to use, without prior agreement needed, and certainly without any 'parking charge' because that was never incorporated into her lease nor 'accepted' by any reasonable interpretation, just because a permit was foisted upon residents one day without any variation of that lease).

safarmuk

I agree with the others that I'd remove myself/my space from the PPC's supposed powers. Not sure if your wife has the power to install a bollard - she owns the leasehold title to the flat and the space, but not the freehold, so not sure if she has rights to install anything which would involve interfering with the surface. However, in practical terms if she does it and puts any damage right (which she would by the proper installation of a bollard) then I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid (the work would be done before anyone could complain).

Freeholders cannot be unreasonable. The fact their MA has implemented a parking scheme would imply their MA thinks a parking problem exists. Therefore the installation of a bollard is justified in stopping the parking problem at source in my opinion and should not be a reasonably rejected request (especially as the allocated bay is underground).

safarmuk

We had a case won (not a counter claim though) where I recall writing the defence off-forum,

Do you have the case reference and claimant / defendant C-M? If so I can add it to my list ...