desperate help in preparing defence vs UK CPM LTD

safarmuk

I will not be attending court (work commitments).

I assume the Defendant intends to attend court?

If he does then the kind of defence/WS you are going to put together for him is going to be quite technical, how is he going to understand it and stand over it on the day? This is far from ideal.

lee_ca

my thoughts exactly safarmuk.
I've almost finished the defence/witness statement. will post shortly. Quite basic but I hope to the point.

lee_ca

ok here goes, first draft
by the way in the original document its all numbered, not sure why not here

IN THE Horsham County Court
Claim number: XXXXX

UK Car Park Management Ltd
CLAIMANT
-AND-
Mr XXXXXXX
DEFENDANT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX
I, XXXX, am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons and WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
As I am unable to afford a solicitor I am representing myself and request some leniency from the court as I have no legal training and have no familiarity with the court/judicial process.
Car Park Management Ltd (UKCPM) issued me with a Penalty Charge notice (PCN) on the XX/11/2016 (PCN number: XXX) and XX/02/2016 (PCN Number: XXX) under the premise that I had committed the following contravention: No commercial Vehicles
Referring to page 3 of UKCPM Witness Statement, Which shows an Authorisation form, forming an agreement between UKCPM (“The Company”) and Itsyourplace Ltd, the Managing Agent (“The Client”), it is clearly written that the restrictions to be imposed on the site address specified are to be “PERMIT HOLDER ONLY” and “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF A MARKED BAY”. Therefore to issue a penalty charge notice of the grounds on a non-existing contravention as per the agreement outlined above is nonsensical and dishonest.
Section 6.2 of my tenancy agreement says: “You and any person living in or visiting your home must not park heavy vehicle goods, public-service, trade or commercial vehicles, caravans, motor homes, trailers or boats, on the garden, driveway, paved or grassed areas around your home or on any shared areas without our agreement in writing. We can tell you and them to remove the vehicles at your own expense.”
I confirm that I work as a Taxi Driver and that the car use for work and for my family duties (my wife and three small children) is the same. I park this car at my allocated space with a valid badge on display (as Issued by Hyde Martlet Housing)
In this tenancy agreement a commercial vehicles is not clearly defined
Nor is it specified in my tenancy agreement that a charge will be incurred by way of a private car parking company issuing a PCN should a “commercial vehicle” be parked; assuming the vehicle in question was a “commercial vehicle” as per the tenancy agreements definition.
The Claimant was and is not a party to the tenancy agreement.. This Claimant has no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no such contract with them can exist when I was authorised to - by virtue of my tenancy rights - in possession at this location.
The introduction of a permit system, which imposes new obligations on residents and their visitors and imposes an obligation to pay a set charge for any 'failure to comply' is not, under any interpretation, a regulation which can be imposed pursuant to any clauses in the tenancy agreements. Such onerous terms are not for the use and enjoyment of residents and such an imposition by a third party firm is incompatible with tenants' and visitors' prior rights to quiet enjoyment of the property.
There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
Even if the Managing Agent has authorised this scheme, it is averred that the intention of such a permit system is solely to discourage trespassers, not to penalise residents and visitors. Under the Tenancy Agreement, the residents are already granted a right to park. A covenant for quiet enjoyment is a standard feature in modern agreement and is implied where not expressly provided.
In Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, an attempt to remove an existing resident's right to park, and an attempt to charge for parking, was made by a Managing Agent. It was held that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) which caused detriment to residents was in breach of the principle that ''a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”. Even if there are signs put up, terms cannot be retrospectively added into a contract by a third party; a parking firm cannot disregard the rights of tenants and their visitors, delivery drivers etc. as was found by a Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, in June 2016.
Authorities to support my defence include but are not limited to the (higher court level) Appeal case heard at Oxford County Court by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. Similar Small Claim decisions in 2016 include Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P - C7GF50J7. All three cases were brought by Gladstones for parking operators (including the original Jopson claim which went to appeal and is persuasive on the lower Courts). In all cases, it was found that the parking company could not override residents’ existing rights by requiring a permit to park and that the signs were of no consequence, due to the primacy of contract enjoyed by the Defendants.
It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance. I would like to point out that this residential car park has allocated bays, and therefore claiming any loss of profit would be unreasonable.
The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behavior is robo-claims and as such is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true

Signed:…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Printed:…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Dated:…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

appreciated any feedback

lee_ca

Anyone, looking to submit tomorrow

Coupon-mad

lee_ca wrote: »

no one helping off board, anything I can do to assist?

I have no time to help off board but I'll ask IamEmanresu about that paperwork issue and pm you if needed.

lee_ca

Just an update.
Was told that family member received a letter today, "General Form of Judgment or Order" and it said

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Due to non-compliance to the Small Claim Allocation Order dated 2 October 2018 and the Claimant not paying the hearing fee of £55.00 by 4pm on 19 October 2017 the claim has been struck out and the hearing listed on 16th November has been vacated

I am guessing this means that's the end of that?
However given the time effort and grief that has gone into this is there anyway they could ask for compensation etc?
thanks

safarmuk

I wondered what happened here, I missed your last posts as the forum was very busy and threads drop off the first few pages quickly.

I am guessing this means that's the end of that?

As I understand this, it seems you have 'won' on a technicality caused by the incompetence of the PPCs solicitors to follow the process. I don't think this precludes them from re-filing a claim (although that would appear to be somewhat unfair).

For piece of mind I would have the defendant ring the court and confirm that the claim has been struck out and the hearing is not going ahead. Also this is the only live claim your relative has going on right now?

However given the time effort and grief that has gone into this is there anyway they could ask for compensation etc?
thanks

Not easily. If you think the effort to defend the claim was high, the effort to try to take them to court and claim any kind of compensation will be higher.

More importantly for now, I would focus on getting the problem sorted out at source.

What did you write to your MP and have you had a response yet. You should be asking them to intervene with the council and the HA to get your relative an exemption for their taxi. The AST allows for this exemption to be given and I see no real reason why it should not be. Push on this because this is the way to stop getting future tickets dead, without that one mistake and you the problem starts again.

lee_ca

unfortunately the local MP was very unhelpful, In fact he didn't even respond and someone else did on their behalf. Here is the response

ALDRIDGE, Steve <steve.aldridge@parliament.uk>
Mon 30/10/2017 22:43
To:
XXX;
Cc:
SMITH, Henry (henry.smith.mp@parliament.uk);
Dear Mr XX

Thank you for your email to Henry Smith MP in relation to the tickets you received whilst parking your dual use vehicle at your property in Pembroke Park; I am responding on Mr Smith’s behalf.

Mr Smith does share your concern with the lack of spaces at Pembroke Park however Crawley Borough Council have granted permission for private parking to operate in the development. As you know from correspondence with the office earlier this year, The Hyde Group have introduced a resident permit parking scheme that does not allow commercial vehicles to park on the estate.

You have my sympathies that you are being taken to court and I do appreciate that this is distressing. It may be worthwhile liaising with a solicitor or Citizens Advice as we are unable to provide you with legal advice.

Yours sincerely

Steve Aldridge
Office Manager to Henry Smith
Member of Parliament for Crawley

As you quite rightly mention, the tenancy agreement clearly states that an exemption can be made in writing. When this was sought after the response was "it would be unfair on the others" which to me makes that tenancy agreement extremely misleading.
They are trying to take this up with the HA once again.

safarmuk

Personally, I would write back and ask your MP to support his constituent in getting the HA to allow his dual purpose taxi to be given an exception to be onsite in his own allocated bay. CC: Theresa May and the Housing Minister. You should explain that this exception is allowed in the tenancy agreement and in this case should be given and in not doing so the HA is not acting reasonably.

If they are not willing to help perhaps ask your MP whether he is suggesting his constituent should give up his job earning a living as a taxi driver and claim benefits instead given he is not allowed to park his multi purpose vehicle in his own allocated bay due to some ill thought out rules being laid down by the HA or perhaps would he like to intervene and rehouse your relative where he is allowed to park his multi purpose vehicle. You might also point out that the taxes generated, from your client earning an honest living and just wishing to park the car he uses for personal use and for earning a living in his own space, are used to pay for hospitals, councils and MPs salaries.

You might also like to mention to your MP that he should look a the Private Members Bill that is going through parliament on PPCs and get up to speed with what a ridiculous scam this is and currently his views show that he appears to fully support the Private Parking Industry and the idiotic application of rules over the well being of his constituents - perhaps he could confirm that is his position. At this point add in Sir Greg Knight (the MP sponsoring this bill)

I'd also go to the local and national press (the Daily Mail loves a story like this).

Kayleigh18

Hi
I’m trying to find the newbie threads as I have similar issues to everyone else I need help!

27/07/17 - PCN issued as I did not have my
Permit in my car for 20 mins in my own allocated space,
PCN was not stuck on my car as by then I had presented my permit and I have video footage of this with a member of CPM standing with me at my car with a valid permit.

4/08/17 - a letter to say I owe £100 (I assumed I had to ignor so i did) I don’t agree I have to pay £100 for being in my own space at my home addressand that the employee of CPM had seen my permit

6/10/17 - letter from DRP debt recovery plus ltd telling me to pay their client “CPM” £160!

30/10/17 - another letter from DRP
Headed ,notice or intended court action if I don’t pay £160

When I moved in the flat in January 2017,CPM did not exist,the company were brought in to potrol the premises in June 2017.
There is nothing in our leasse about permits or CPM.

Do I have any rights? To fight this?

Any Info would be much appreciated

Many thanks
Kayleigh