Ace Security Services CN

nosferatu1001

Nothing there allows them to vary the conditions to a detriment. Removing right to park and replacing it with a need to contract with a third party is a derogation.

ts22

should i draft a defence which revolves around this type of defence

nosferatu1001

No, thats jsut one eleemnt. You have I presume read the newbies thread, and seen other defences?
Has the drivers identity been revealed? YES or NO. Do not give any other answer.

ts22

No, I have not given any information with regards to driver identification. I have read the newbie section and looked at other defences. I will begin a draft with various points and repost on this thread the draft.

Thanks for your help

ts22

Hi all,
This is my attempt of writing a draft defence. It is a little rough and I am sure there is more to add but it is a start. I will begin by explaining before you can read the defence.

The vehicle in question was parked in an estate which previously did not require a permit (for years). There is now signage from the PPC stating they manage and operate on the land. The vehicle was parked and fined on two occasions.

The signage across the estate is your generic one from ACE and the initial charge was 60 pounds increased to 100. I had two tickets and now they are claiming 400 pounds. When I first posted a thread, the main wording would have been on the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy agreement allows for the variations in the contract and permits residents and visitors to use the estate for parking. It also mentions that there may be permits required though there is nothing to mention that a change can be made to force us into contracts with 3rd parties.

It just came up to my mind but, the permits for residents are issued by lewisham homes but are Ace Permits. Funny enough, the visitor permits are lewisham home permits and not ACE permits. Would it be worth scrutinising that ACE are issuing tickets through a Lewisham Homes permit and not their own and that they have no authority to do that. Or is that just a far-fetch arguments.

Any suggestions are welcome, and I hope to take them on board and edit.

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
Preliminary

1. The particulars of claim lack specifity and have no interest in enforcing parking control in a respectable and peaceful manner. The claimaint is known to issue penalty charges excessively and have no interest in operating fairly and are prejudice in simply attempting to extort money through their style of parking management/control.

2. Having received the Letter Before Court Claim, the defendant has requested all necessary information to put together a full defence. The claimant has refused to provide this information on numerous occasions failing to comply with pre-court protocol. In addition to this, the process required to request this information or appeal from Gladstones Solicitors required the input of personal details which should not have to be provided and there are no other means available to do so i.e. an email address.

3. The claimant's trade body, the International Parking Community (IPC), was an organisation up until recently operated by the same directors as Gladstone Solicitors. There is a clear conflict of interest given the relationship between both parties and no surprise that appeals are constantly rejected. In addition to this, Gladstone Solicitors are employed to bring about this claim.
Background

1.The defendant, denies liability of the claim in all its entirety.

2. Parking in and around this estate has been free for years and enjoyed by residents and visitors. Since introduction of the claimant, peace has been disrupted and instead of enforcing parking in a proper manner, it is residents and visitors who have received charge notices.
Primacy of contract / right to park

3. In respect to parking arrangements, the defendant denies any contract with the claimant.

4. The leaseholder agreement allows for tenants and visitors to the estate to park within the land. Parking in the estate has never required a permit for years and in the event that a permit is required, no where in the tenancy agreement does it state that tenants/visitors can/should be forced into contract with a third party. To enforce this is a derogation.

Refusal to supply information

5. When the notice charge was first issued, the defendant requested from the claimaint the following:
a) full particulars of the parking charges
b) who was the party that contracted with the parking company.
c) the full legal identity of the landowner
d) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
Authority to issue Penalty Charges

6. The claimant has refused to provide any information on the basis that I am not a tenant. However, they also provide an automated response from their appeals email address completely refusing to provide any details of landowner irrespective of weather or not a defendant is a tenant or not. The claimant is put to strict proof. Denying this prevents the claimant from taking the issue up with the landowner.

7. The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and the defendant believes they do not have the authority to issue charges in their own name on this land. They are simply acting on behalf of an agent who do not own the land and failed to demonstrate they have a legal contract to operate on this land.

8. The claimants parking control have no set processes in place. The defendant is issuing resident permits of their own type, but have no permit system in place for visitors. Instead visitor permits are being issued by Lewisham Homes and are Lewisham Home permits; the claimant is put to strict proof, which the defendant has no authority to issue penalty charges as permit this does not belong to them.

9. The site where the parking ticket was issued does not count as relevant land under POFA schedule 4, and the registered keeper cannot be held liable where the driver cannot be identified. Accordingly Lewisham Homes acts as an ALMO (arms length management organisation) and whom the defendant believes is under the control of the landowner. Thus the claimant has no authority to operate on this site.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

ts22

anyone got any suggestions?

KeithP

But on your other thread you told us:

ts22 wrote: »

I have read the newbie section and looked at other defences. I will begin a draft with various points and repost on this thread the draft.

Why have you started a new thread?

Do we now have three threads covering this one incident?

Coupon-mad

Independent Parking Committee (IPC),

Wrong company. Should be International Parking Community.

It just came up to my mind but, the permits for residents are issued by lewisham homes but are Ace Permits. Funny enough, the visitor permits are lewisham home permits and not ACE permits. Would it be worth scrutinising that ACE are issuing tickets through a Lewisham Homes permit and not their own and that they have no authority to do that.

I think that has legs, the contract for visitors is made between a driver and Lewisham Homes. Also, Lewisham Homes is an ALMO, remaining at all times an arm of (or under control of) the Council, who I believe are still the landowner:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/monitoring_of_lewisham_homes

Thus part of your defence (if you've never said who was driving!) can state that the site is not 'relevant land' under the POFA, and as such a registered keeper cannot be liable (at all) where the driver on any given occasion cannot be identified. This argument is better if your car could be driven by other people, family members etc., whether or not your insurance covers them specifically. Because you can say in truth that the driver could have been one of 2 or 3 people and so on the balance of probabilities the driver may not have been you (less than 51% chance).

Look at the POFA Schedule 4 for the definition of 'relevant land'... 'not under statutory control'. This land (arguably) is.

Only if you've never said who was driving.

Edit your first post NOW, think of the PPC reading it, say nothing about who was driving or altered permits!

Your threads need merging, send a pm to soolin or Crabman and ask!

ts22

sorry yes, i know ive been a mess with new threads. I thought this thread i would just put everythng under the first post. apologies. i will go and email them now to merge threads and update

Redx

click on soolin`s name at the bottom right of this forum and send them a new private message , asking for the threads to be merged, then stick to the merged thread for this topic

open a new thread for an entirely different topic, like a new unralated parking ticket