Ukcpm county court claim - overstaying visitor bay residential area

SJP1993

Hello,

I received a county court claim for overstaying in a visitor bay back in September 2016. I have written out my defence I was wondering if anyone could read through it?


Thanks so much in advance!



Preliminary.

1) The particulars of claim are lacking in specificity and are embarrassing. The defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full defence. The defendant reserves the right to seek from the court permission to serve an amended defence should the claimant expand or add to his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or limit the claimant only to unevidenced allegations in the particulars.
2) The particulars of claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and fails to comply with the CPR 16 in respect of containing a concise statement of the nature of the claim, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

Authority to park and primacy of contract.

3) It is admitted that at all material times the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with The Co-operative Insurance Group with 2 named drivers permitted to use it. The defendant was also the tenant of a flat in the development of XXXXXX.
4) It is admitted on the 8th September 2016 the defendants vehicle was parked in a Visitor bay within the residential development of XXXX.
5) There is no agreement with the defendant’s tenancy agreement that states the tenant has to be limited to 4 hours stay in a visitor bay, or pay for a penalty charge notice to a third party for overstaying the 4 hour period. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless the defendant has agreed to variation of the tenancy, which she has not.
6) The defendant states that the operators signs cannot override the rights that existed and were enjoyed by the residents at the time of occupancy in the development. The defendant will rely upon the judgements on appeal of In Pace v Mr N (2016) C6GF14F0, it was found that a third party could not unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement. The court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
7) Therefore, it is denied that there was any agreement between the defendant or driver of the vehicle and the claimant. Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim.
8) At the date of parking there were various signs up in the development which had conflicting information. One sign within Charrington Place stated, “MARKED VISITOR BAYS NO PERMITS ARE REQUIRED. VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED TO STAY FOR A MAXIMUM 4HRS AND NOT RETURN FOR 4HRS. (TIME RESTRICTION APPLIES 08:00-00:00 MONDAY TO FRIDAY). Where as another sign failed to mention anything regarding visitor bays.
9) The defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where a commercial value has to be protected. The claimant has not suffered any loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with BPA distinguished.
10) No figure for additional charges was ‘agreed’ nor could it have formed part of an alleged “contract” because no indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
11) The defendant also disputes the that the claimant has incurred £50.00 costs for legal representative fees for an alleged £100 debt.
12) 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 the interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the claimant.

Statement of Truth.

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

safarmuk

Is this a certain charming city in Hertfordshire?

Looking on Google Street Maps you can't see the signs that clearly but they appear to have the BPA roundel on them ... unfortunately this is not fatal but you can complain to the BPA as they are not under that ATA any more (they moved to the IPC) but are still using their roundel. UK CPM will just say they "cant change all their signs as there are too many".

Others will be along to critique your defence but have you also in parallel targeted the developer (Linden) or the Management Agent to get this cancelled?

SJP1993

Yes it is in a development in Hertfordshire with horrendous parking!

Yes I’m adding that into my defence as well!

Thank you for your advice 😄

safarmuk

Yes it is in a development in Hertfordshire with horrendous parking!

Near the station it seems ...

Don't get too hung up on the BPA roundel on the signs, its not a killer blow. More a minor irritation you can cause them.

I am presuming you own or rent a flat at this location or were visiting someone who does?
These kind of cases can boil down to the lease or the AST of the person who owns or rents the flat and what the lease or AST says about parking. Do you have sight of the lease or the AST?

The other way to get this stopped is to get the person who contracted the PPC (usually the MA but, in this case as the sales centre was still there when the PPC signs were up possibly in this case it is the developer) to get it cancelled. Have you or the leaseholder/tenant contacted this entity?

SJP1993

Sorry for the delay in replying.


Yes I have evidenced my tenancy agreement which states nothing about consequences of miss parking in the development. I'm hoping this is enough to hold me up in court.

I've also mentioned the inconsistency of information regarding visitor bays throughout the development.

I've recieved my court date and I'm now trying to compile my witness statement.

Coupon-mad

OK, show us the draft in good time.