Gladstones letter before claim

123Messiah

ok thanks I will do shortly.

Is the defence ready to send?

nosferatu1001

Are YOU happy with it?
This is YOUR court case, so YOU must know and be happy with all aspects of your defence.

123Messiah

the tenancy says:

(27) Parking (i) not to park any vehicle other than a currently taxed private motor or motorcycle on the Association's property and such parking must be within designated parking areas.

(ii) Vehicles are parked entirely at owners risk and the Association does not accept liability for any damage caused to the vehicle, or by vehicle to property or persons.

(iii) Not to park any vehicles in excess of a UK Maximum Gross Weight of 3.5 tonnes on Association land.

(iv) Any vehicles parked on Association land must be adequately insured.

(v) Not to park or store caravans, trailers, boats or mobile homes on Association land.

(vi) Not to block local roadways or other vehicular access and to keep them and car parking spaces clear of unroadworthy vehicles, untaxed vehicles over 15CWT, and other obstructions and free from oil spillage.

(vii) Not to park any vehicle motorcycle, caravan, boat or trailer where it is likely to cause a nuisance to anyone.

(viii) You agree that the Association shall be entitled to remove from the Associations property and/or dispose of any vehicle belonging to the tenant which in the Association's opinion is unroadworthy and/or unsafe and/or is not displaying a current and valid disk or any vehicle parked in breach of this Tenancy Agreement and the Association shall be entitled to recover the costs of such removal from you.




The defendant has never been approached by the association so therefore in the 5 years has seen to have done no wrong by them?
If the defendant was in breach of there tenancy agreement in regards to the parking Claus then the Assosication has rights to approach them.

At what stage would this be added in as in the defence can't add evidence.

MUCH help would be appreciated : )

Defendant wants to send off this week.

Kind regards

KeithP

What's all that about then?

Your defence states that the defendant denies being the driver.

Yet the last few lines of your most recent post, and most of your other posts, tells the world that the driver is the defendant. :eek:

Surely the keeper is the defendant?

Make up your mind.

123Messiah

can I add to the defence.

8. As set out on defendants sister's tenancy agreement, for which the defendant visits regulary it states.

(viii) You agree that the Association shall be entitled to remove from the Associations property and/or dispose of any vehicle belonging to the tenant which in the Association's opinion is unroadworthy and/or unsafe and/or is not displaying a current and valid disk or any vehicle parked in breach of this Tenancy Agreement and the Association shall be entitled to recover the costs of such removal from you.

The association has never approached the defendant nor does it mention anything about third parties operatives.

nosferatu1001

You need to URGENTLY review your defence as pointed out above.

123Messiah

UPDATED:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKING AND PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LIMITED
OCEAN HOUSE
12th FLOOR
THE RING
BRACKNELL
RG12 1AX

-and-

XXX

___________________________________________
DEFENCE
_______________________________________________

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity . 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.

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]

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. 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.

6. The Defendant avers that the operators 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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

123Messiah

Even if the driver was not in a bay at the date and time in question they were not approached by the association as per the tenancy agreement nor were any notes left on the car is question.

The driver would always park in a bay shortly after with a permit visible.

Coupon-mad

Only skim-read but what about at least mentioning the alternative issues like:

- unclear, sporadic signs
- no landowner authority

System

Even if the driver was not in a bay at the date and time in question they were not approached by the association as per the tenancy agreement nor were any notes left on the car is question.

It's not relevant. It smacks of mitigation and courts don't do mitigation. Concentrate on the comments by C-M above.