We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking charge - permit on show but not in bay
Options
Laura_Higgs_76
Posts: 64 Forumite
Firstly I know its stupid but I did not appeal or reply to letters. Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Somone has 20! Most have said PCM are only following up the ones they appealed and not all of them so I stupidly ignored every letter I got!
I now have two official (stamped) claim letters and I have already extended both by 14 days. I wish I saw this forum sooner! Instead, in my extra 14 days I saw a solicitor who said because I didn't have the original PCNs, he could not do anything but make an offer. I bought the lease, the signage in parking area and the letters and he did not look at any of it!
Background of my case - 4 visitor bays were blocked off for work carried out in a new builds garden. I had my visitor permit on show and parked not in a bay, but somewhere out of the way. I received 5 tickets in total and they are taking me to court for £1,000. Since then, the landowners have increased visitor parking bays by a further 15-20 - they must have realised there was a shortage!
I have to send my defence by this friday and don't even know if I have anything to stand on!
Also not good, my solictor told me to make offer of half so he sent an email on my behalf saying "without accepting liability" we offer you £525. They rejected and said minimum they would accept is £800!
Please help!!!!
DEFENCE (after advice from Coupon-Mad - thank you!)
Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. (RED SECTION - I have read up and this claim does try to include interest and legal costs and mentions "damages" so think this is relevant for me?)
Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.
4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]
5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (Would I include this?)
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. (not sure about this section?)
5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.(I can't find much information in the lease so don't think this is relevant - especially considering I am not the leaseholder - my partner is)
7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. (Again, signage included in pictures but don't think relevant. Or could this point link to the fact they took away spaces?)
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(all relevant - but i did have my permit on show everytime)
Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
(last point is definitely relevant, attached pictures of signage as no sure the rest is - signage may be sufficient?)
9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.
Further relevant points;
Thank you
PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
Court Case 1
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg
Court Case 2
hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg
Car park signage
hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg
Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg
Visitor bays blocked off
hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg
Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg
Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg
I now have two official (stamped) claim letters and I have already extended both by 14 days. I wish I saw this forum sooner! Instead, in my extra 14 days I saw a solicitor who said because I didn't have the original PCNs, he could not do anything but make an offer. I bought the lease, the signage in parking area and the letters and he did not look at any of it!
Background of my case - 4 visitor bays were blocked off for work carried out in a new builds garden. I had my visitor permit on show and parked not in a bay, but somewhere out of the way. I received 5 tickets in total and they are taking me to court for £1,000. Since then, the landowners have increased visitor parking bays by a further 15-20 - they must have realised there was a shortage!
I have to send my defence by this friday and don't even know if I have anything to stand on!
Also not good, my solictor told me to make offer of half so he sent an email on my behalf saying "without accepting liability" we offer you £525. They rejected and said minimum they would accept is £800!
Please help!!!!
DEFENCE (after advice from Coupon-Mad - thank you!)
Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. (RED SECTION - I have read up and this claim does try to include interest and legal costs and mentions "damages" so think this is relevant for me?)
Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.
4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]
5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (Would I include this?)
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. (not sure about this section?)
5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.(I can't find much information in the lease so don't think this is relevant - especially considering I am not the leaseholder - my partner is)
7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. (Again, signage included in pictures but don't think relevant. Or could this point link to the fact they took away spaces?)
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
(all relevant - but i did have my permit on show everytime)
Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
(last point is definitely relevant, attached pictures of signage as no sure the rest is - signage may be sufficient?)
9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.
Further relevant points;
- As Coupon-Mad confirmed, Saeed v Plustrade are relevant here ;
"But for the interference the claimant was able to park on 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 9 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right.'".
Also to note here, once work was completed, the spaces increased to 20-25 spaces in competition with the same number of persons showing they realised the lack of spacing meant people were not able to park in the confines of a marked bay.
(Not sure how to word this - I have amended the parking space numbers. note, not every ticket I got was due to the V bays being blocked off as shown in attachment but it was due to the lack of numbers before they increased it). - Not sure if there is anything else that goes in my favor?
- Also, in case of confusion, they have taken me to court in two separate claims?? One is for 3 of the dates, and the other is for the remaining two. Is this to get more money out of me so I have to pay more legal and court fees on top of the original charge?? Or was it the court who decided to do this in two separate claims?
Thank you
PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
Court Case 1
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg
Court Case 2
hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg
Car park signage
hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg
Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg
Visitor bays blocked off
hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg
Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg
Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg
0
Comments
-
As youre new you CANNOT post "live" links to other websites. Use somehting like tinypic to host the pictures, and post "hxxp" links - so not "http", change to "hxxp" -- and we can post them properly.
So confusion - you have ONE claim form or TWO? You said anbove "a" stamped claim form, singular, then at the bottom you say you have two?
What does your lease state about your rights to park? Youve not told us anything on it.0 -
images can not be uploaded to the forum .......
you need to host / upload them else where .... some where like tinypic
you then post the url here
when you do you will need to change the http bit to xxtp ( or any such veriation) as newbies can not post links untill they get a few posts under thier belts
Ralph:cool:0 -
Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.
I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.0 -
Laura_Higgs_76 wrote: »Thank you! I have updated the post as I did in fact receive two separate claim cases - splitting the 5 tickets up into 3 and 2 dates.
I am really sorry I am not tech savvy at all and google results did not help to find a converter for html to hxxp or xxtp - any help would be appreciated.
There is not a converter.
Upload from your pc to somewhere like tinypic and you
will get a URL link
Because at the moment you can not show a link, you
paste the link on here but use hxxp instead of http
and someone here will convert it0 -
That would explain why I couldn't find it - sorry.
All done thank you0 -
PICTURES WITH HXXP NOT HTTP
Court Case 1
http://i65.tinypic.com/21kb53k.jpg
Court Case 2
http://i63.tinypic.com/kdpks7.jpg
Car park signage
http://i64.tinypic.com/10ehl79.jpg
Lease (only one page I could find mentioned visitor parking)
http://i67.tinypic.com/15jdas.jpg
Visitor bays blocked off
http://i68.tinypic.com/24meqfa.jpg
Solitor letter 1 (letter before claim)
http://i64.tinypic.com/xbjrzn.jpg
Solicitor letter 2 (letter before claim - NOTE they called me MR on this one, I am Ms)
http://i65.tinypic.com/2yyefjb.jpg
Absolutely no mileage on mr / ms confusion. Thats an irrelevancy.0 -
I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!
Thanks again for the support so far.
MY DEFENCE
[FONT="]Preliminary[/FONT][FONT="]
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct;[/FONT]
[FONT="]2.1 The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.[/FONT]
[FONT="]a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.[/FONT]
[FONT="]b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.[/FONT]
[FONT="]c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.[/FONT]
[FONT="]d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.[/FONT]
[FONT="]It just states ‘parking charges’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark [FONT="]XX XXX[/FONT] which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [FONT="]XXX[/FONT] with 1 other named driver, [FONT="]XXXXX[/FONT], permitted to use it.
4. It is admitted that on 18/01/2016 and 19/01/2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [FONT="]XXXX[/FONT].
5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation; [/FONT]
[FONT="]7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (‘IPC’) Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory;
7.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.[/FONT]
[FONT="]10. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
11. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 per ticket equaling £200 [FONT="]for [FONT="]two[/FONT][/FONT], to a charge of £417.32. The charge is steep considering this is not commercial land and a visitor permit was on show. The parking company should be to deter non-residents/visitors from parking. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.[/FONT]
[FONT="]a. The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.[/FONT]
[FONT="]b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT="]12. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.[/FONT]
[FONT="]13. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT][FONT="]
I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.
[/FONT]0 -
I had to submit my own defence so welcome comments and advice please. I had no help at all so please no nasty comments if I have included something I shouldn't have!
No nasty comments at all - that's good and based on one in the NEWBIES thread.
This is a bit buried:11 The Claimant has raised two separate claims which appears to be an added cost
...so make sure you repeat that point clearly at DQ stage, then again, once it is allocated to your local court (repeat it like a stuck record until a Judge does something to merge or strike out the claims).
At each stage of paperwork from now on, attach a covering letter telling the court about the abuse of process and waste of the courts time and your Defence costs, asking the Court to strike out one of the claims/vacate one hearing if two are set, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease.
This sort of thing needs to go into your Witness Statement later:
...because you want the Judge to see the PPC scam protection racket for what it is.Everyone in our new block of flats gets a ticket a week! Someone has 20!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »
...so make sure you repeat that point clearly at DQ stage, then again, once it is allocated to your local court (repeat it like a stuck record until a Judge does something to merge or strike out the claims).
At each stage of paperwork from now on, attach a covering letter telling the court about the abuse of process and waste of the courts time and your Defence costs, asking the Court to strike out one of the claims/vacate one hearing if two are set, or in the alternative, make an order of the court's own volition to avoid wasted resources, requiring that the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease.
This sort of thing needs to go into your Witness Statement later:
...because you want the Judge to see the PPC scam protection racket for what it is.
Thanks so much! I finally got this response from Gladstones today;
"[FONT="][FONT="] Dear Mr XXX **STILL ADDRESSING ME AS MR**
Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited-v-Mr XXX
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.
Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing
This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.
You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.
Yours sincerely
[FONT="]Molly[/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]Also attached was the following covering letter;[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION
We kindly request that the Court send the N159 form (attached) to the Defendant for their consideration and, upon the Defendant consenting to the case being heard on the papers alone, the Judge makes the following direction;
“The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.”
[FONT="][FONT="]
As well as attaching the following directions questionnaire;
page 1 - hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/2jdkg2u.jpg
page 2 - hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/t5t4si.jpg
page 3 - hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/30dktow.jpg
Questions please;
1. Do I want them to do it based on the papers only? I guess I don't?
2. How do I respond to say I do or don't? I assume I wait for the court to send me the DQ in the post?
3. They have requested it to be in their court if it isn't based on papers - how can I reject this (always thought was in defendant's court)
4. I am confused that they have only sent me one email and it only referred to one of the claims (not both)? (Interestingly the bigger one?)
5. Is it best once sending back the DQ [FONT="]to attach[/FONT] a cover letter to the judge to get the two cases merged? (also including.. that "the Claimant re-files the claim with full particulars as one single claim, also evidencing on what basis the Claimant believes there is a cause of action and how they believe they are able to override the rights and easements and peaceful enjoyment of residents, without being a party to the lease." as stated above?)
Thanks so much for your support so far!
[/FONT][/FONT]0 -
Covered in the newbies thread I thought, OR else EASILY found by doing simple search on Gladstones special directions
No, you want a hearing in person of course. Papers means you do not get chance to object to the lies they put in their bundle.
2) This is DEFINITELY covered in newbies thread - should be your first port of call, then doing a search, THEN asking quesitons - you use your own N180, either the printed one the court sends or simply down;load it.
3) You simply state as per the CPR (cant reclall) you request the defendants home court, as the defendnat is an individual
4) Who knows, the other might be in the pile to do. they dont read anything
5) Yes, every single time you communicate to the court you ask the second claim to be either STRUCK or MERGED with the larger. there is no need to waste the courts time holding two hearings for essentially one case.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards