Claim form-county court business centre

MrsG2711

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD Ref. xxxxxxxx/UK CAR PARK (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

I am [NAME] of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied in its entirety and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

i. The Tenancy Agreement permits the resident to visitor parking
ii. The Tenancy Agreement pre dates the contract between xxxxx Housing and CPM parking
iii. There is no record of any agreed amendments to said Tenancy Agreement
iv. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
v. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
vi. It is unfair and unlawful to revoke the ability to set down and pick up at your place of residence when a tenancy agreement permits parking
vii. The point of a residential parking scheme should not be to penalise residents and legitimate visitors

1. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case. The Landlord (xxxxx Housing) have not been unresponsive in my requests for information, therefore my defence is based solely on the information I have, namely The Tenancy Agreement, printed by xxxxx Housing on Wednesday 19th July 2017 at the tenants request. (xxxxx)

2. The property is occupied by the tenant, under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement dated 30/06/2010. The agreement grants the right to park in 'parking areas', with no stipulation as to any need to display permits, or to pay financial penalties. The grant under this agreement can also be derogated to visitors authorised by the tenant.

3. Since the tenant has an existing unfettered right to park, or to allow visitors to park, set down and pick up, this right cannot be varied by the Claimant, either in the form of letters to the tenant, or signage. The principle of primacy of contract in this kind of situation has recently be tested in the cases of Jopson v Homeguard Services, PACE Security v Noor, and Link Parking v Parkinson, all of which were decided in favour of the motorist on this point.


4. When procuring the services of CPM parking, there was no due diligence or fair process regarding Primacy of Contract. An unlawful blanket approach was introduced by both xxxxx Housing and CPM parking. xxxxx Housing have verbally informed me that the wording on the tenancy agreement has since changed as I pointed out that it is misleading, as it clearly states parking which has since been revoked, she could not explain why the tenancy agreement on file was the original 2010, she was of the undersanding it should have been updated. (Telephone call between myself and xxxxx Housing Neighbourhood Manager-xxxxx on 31st July 2017 at 17:16).


The xxxxx Housing Neighbourhood Manager-xxxx has been liaising with CPM parking with regards to this situation, she requested my car registration and parking ticket number of which I emailed to her on Tuesday 1st August 2017 at 09:16. I am yet to hear back from her.


5. In regard to points i, ii and iii.
On 19 July 2017 circa 16:00. xxxxx (resident) visited xxxxx Housing to request a copy of her Tenancy Agreement and any letters on her file relating to the parking issues. Her files only contained a signed tenancy agreement from 2010 and a copy was printed and given to her. This has been followed up by x2 emails on 25/07/17 and 01/01/17 once again requesting information relating to parking she is yet to receive a response.


6. In regard to point iii, iv and v.
The signage has no bearing on the tenant as the terms of parking have already been agreed, so a third party cannot vary those terms or start charging, as was the case of:
UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson and also in the case of:
UKPC v Miss C Reading 12/07/2017. DJ Harrison and Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon. Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage.

7. In regards to point vi and vii
The tenant is in employment and has a young family, she relies on assistance from family for childcare, xxxxx Housing has not provided any provision for the setting down and pick up of passengers or goods when banning vehicles in the parking area and introducing CPM parking services.

Planning application reference 03/02035/P dated 15.02.2005 between London Borough of Croydon and xxxxx Housing Group Limited (now xxxxx) Section 5 number (5) states: facilities for the loading and unloading of vehicles.
The total ban of any vehicles in the parking area that xxxxx Housing now says is in place denies the residents of this basic right.

This is in breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment for tenants who have a lease permitting parking for themselves and their visitors.


"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."


Without prejudice

bargepole

lisamarie2711 wrote: »

It is believed that some tenants agreements permit parking and some do not. In this case the tenancy agreement was signed in 2010 permitting parking in ‘parking areas’ although no designated ‘parking area’ is detailed as specified or exempt, except for where you may be blocking emergency access or exit points or where vehicles could cause inconvenience. In the absence of parking bays or guidance from the Landowner/Lessor regarding aloocation of parking, I parked in accordance with the agreement, as in not blocking any entrance/exit or causing an inconvenience.


The signage has no bearing on the tenant as the terms of parking have already been agreed, so a third party cannot vary those terms or start charging, as was the case of:
UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson and also in the case of:
UKPC v Miss C Reading 12/07/2017. DJ Harrison and Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon. (Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage)

This is a bit weak, and you should only cite cases for which a transcript of the Judgment is available.

Suggested rewording as follows:

The property is occupied by the tenant, under the terms of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) dated xx/xx/2010. The AST grants the right to park in 'parking areas', with no stipulation as to any need to display permits, or to pay financial penalties for non-display of same. The grant under this agreement can also be derogated to visitors authorised by the tenant.

Since the tenant has an existing unfettered right to park, or to allow visitors to park, this right cannot be varied by the Claimant, either in the form of letters to the tenant, or signage. The principle of primacy of contract in this kind of situation has recently be tested in the cases of Jopson v Homeguard Services, PACE Security v Noor, and Link Parking v Parkinson, all of which were decided in favour of the motorist on this point.

lisamarie2711 wrote: »

Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - Part 2/Chapter 1/Section 13
Information to be provided before making a distance contract.
Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, clause 13(1) of the act states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided.

I would lose this paragraph altogether, I've argued the CCR 2013 in front of six different Judges now, and none have agreed that it's a distance contract.

You also need to number all the paragraphs.

MrsG2711

After re-reading an email sent from housing, they now realise they cannot have me on not being able to park but may go for the fact that I was parked on a white line with a dropped kerb. I was not obstructing any other cars or in the way of the entrance. I only parked here due the the confusion parking with the residents. It was not on a road but in a car parking area.

what are your thoughts?

MrsG2711

After re-reading an email sent from the housing (landlord), it seems they now realise they cannot have me on not being able to park but may go for the fact that I was parked on a white line with a dropped kerb. I was not obstructing any other cars or in the way of the entrance. (I am going to go and take photos)

I parked here due the blanket parking enforcement on the residents. It is still in the car parking area (an area not defined by the landlord) but i would like to close this out too so that they dont' have anything on me

what are your thoughts

bargepole

Depends what is pleaded in the particulars of claim. If the email from the HA isn't part of their evidence, it's irrelevant.

MrsG2711

it will definitely not form part of their evidence as it totally contradicts what is written in the tenancy agreement. The emails benefit me as it shows the total lack of due diligence and primacy of contract

Can they have me on this?

bargepole

lisamarie2711 wrote: »

... Can they have me on this?

How? If it's not in their evidence, it's not part of the case, and they can't just suddenly produce it in court, ambushes are not allowed.

MrsG2711

I am looking at the photo evidence and it occurred to me this is what they will use against me as they surely they are not so dumb to take me to court knowing there is a tenancy agreement permitting parking. I may be paranoid but it was strange that the housing asked where in the car park i was parked

bargepole

lisamarie2711 wrote: »

... surely they are not so dumb to take me to court knowing there is a tenancy agreement permitting parking...

Are you kidding? They do it every day of the week. Look at the cases reported on the Prankster blog, or on other threads in this forum.

They work on the principle that if they throw enough excrement at the wall, some of it will stick.

Dumb, and dumber.

MrsG2711

Yes, you are right but i don't want them to have anything on me.

I do remember speaking to one of the residents and she said that a parking attendant told her they do not ticket the area with the doped kerb. It may be that this is not in their contract as the parking spaces here belong to one of the offices. I will call the office and try to find out.