Parking ticket received when parking in residential space

jcd080918

Hello everyone,

I am in need of some advice with regards to preparing evidence before a court hearing. I believe I have potentially made some mistakes to date, so want to discover if I have any chance of success or if I am doomed to fail.

My main argument is that the parking company entered into a contract with the housing management company six months after my tenancy agreement was signed.

There was also no notification received of the change in management company. I am 99% sure that no signs were on display in the car park up until December of last year.

Here is a summary of events so far:

1) I received a letter from the parking management company, saying that my permit was not displayed. They said that I did not respond to the parking ticket on the car within 21 days, and so the time for appeal has expired. I have never seen any ticket on my car.

This is not the first time it has happened, as a previous ticket I was issued with was also not seen. At the time, I requested a new parking permit, as my old one had been lost. However, I have never been told that I need to display a permit, there is no mention of it in my lease, and the only documentation I have seen on parking is a notice from a previous parking management company stating that I have to park in my allocated space - no mention of permits at all.

2) I reply to the letter, stating that I had not seen the ticket, and that the permit is always on display. I ask to see the evidence that it was not displayed.

3) The company replies, stating that the 21 days from the original parking ticket has passed. They also reference the previous ticket that was cancelled, and say for that reason there is no reason to engage with the IAS.

4) I respond, asking again to receive evidence that my permit was not displayed.

5) I receive a single page 'Notice of Intent to Issue Court Proceedings', detailing the amount owed and that I had 7 days to respond.

6) I receive the County Court Claim form.

7) Below is the defence I have included when I responded to the court. It's based on information I found on this forum and Pepipoo:

I am XXXXXXX, Defendant in the matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
The claim is denied in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons.
(1) The Defendant has prepared the defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an allocated leaseheld residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.
(2) The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the capacity to offer parking.
(3)The claim makes reference to a breach of the terms and conditions of parking in the car park. However, the letting agreement which was signed at the start of the Defendant’s tenancy makes no reference to any terms and conditions for parking.
(4)The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.
(5)The parking charge is also in breach of the Quiet Enjoyment clause in the Defendant’s letting agreement:
8.1.1
That the Tenant paying the rent and performing and observing the obligations on the Tenant’s part contained in this Agreement shall peaceably hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any unlawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under, through or in trust for the Landlord.
(6)The ‘Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: recovery of unpaid parking charges’ states in section 5.2 that:
‘For Schedule 4 to apply the driver of a vehicle must first be liable for unpaid parking charges. There are broadly two situations where a driver could become liable for parking charges:
a. where a driver has entered into a contract to park on private land and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of that contract; or
b. where a driver has trespassed on private land where signs showing charges for unauthorised parking are displayed.

(7) The Defendant’s disagree that he was in breach of terms and conditions for parking as
a) the letting agreement does not state that any such conditions exist,
b) no notification was received of any changes to rules and regulations for parking in the space allocated, and
c) the letting agreement signed in January 2014 predates any agreement between the claimant and the building management, should such an agreement exist.
(8)Primacy of contract applies, and the lease gives residents the right to park which cannot be unilaterally overridden by a third party.
(9)There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents, nor charge for them, or this would constitute a matter of 'derogation from grant' which the courts could not support.
(10)In Pace v Mr Noor [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
(11)In Link Parking v Ms Parkinson C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
(12)In Pace v Mr Noor [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE came back again, this time claiming that clause 6.3 of the lease allowed the terms of the lease to be varied. The judge ruled that this clause required a month's notice to be given, and as this had not occurred, the point was moot. The claim, and 7 others relying on this, were dismissed.
(13)If the lease does not give primacy of contract, then the contract is established at the time the permits are given to the residents by the management. The signage is there only to create contracts with non-residents. This contract cannot be unilaterally altered.
(14)The claimant has also refused to provide evidence to support their claim, despite a request made in writing by the defendant.
(15) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant requests the court strike out the claim as being utterly without merit and having no prospect of success.

8)I receive the court date and directions to supply evidence.

9)The parking management company sends me their evidence. This includes images of my car, where a permit cannot be seen on the windscreen. There is no image of the parking signs in these images, the ones they have supplied that do show images are taken at a much later date.

The defence also includes copy of the Head Lease between the building owner and the management company, a document that I have never seen before.

-

I am planning to include the documents listed in my defence statement. Is there anything else that I can provide to support my case?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

KeithP

You would be wise to edit your post to remove your full name.

It would also be a good idea to get MSE to change your forum username to something more anonymous.
To do that, hit the Report button on your post and ask MSE's ForumTeam to help you.

System

Defence looks good as Noor and Parkinson both apply though Parkinson was not a tenant but a leaseholder.

Likely to go all the way though so hassle the Management Company or whoever hired them for details of the arrangement and whether it was brought in by the residents themselves after consultation or imposed by the Head Leaseholder without consideration.

If you can get a copy of your landlord's lease then that will be useful. See para 22 in Link v Blaney for an explanation,

Loadsofchildren123

Your WS needs to run through your tenancy rights, how/where you used to park, what happened when the old PPC was brought in, and what happened with this new PPC. Ue there was no letter through your door telling you anything about the change or attempting to impose any "new" rules. Then what happened on the day in q, and the previous ticket.
Then a section complaining that they refused to engage with you, contrary to paras 3, 6(a) and 6(c) of the practice direction (not just its overriding objective).

They've probably produced the lease to show that the freeholder (and the MA on its behalf) probably has rights to nitro dice new regulations concerning the running of the state.
Have a look at the two threads by Daniel San and hairray which run through the legal position in great detail.

Guys_Dad

You are a tenant. I am assuming that you are not a leaseholder.

It is important to find out what their position is. For example, if they have agreed to bring in a PPC, then your beef is with them for not informing you.

If they are helpful, then you need a copy of their lease to claim supremacy as tenancy on its own cold leave you exposed. A tenant is bound by their landlord's restrictions. If these have not been conveyed to the tenant by the landlord, then it is the landlord who needs to be counter sued.