Parking dispute help. County Court Claim issued, my DEFENCE in post #63

Le_Kirk

If you receive a judgment against you and you PAY IT within the specified time, it will not go on your record. You can pay the original PCN any time up to walking into court.

Is your defence based on one of the concise defences from the NEWBIE thread? Here is a link to one based on one by Bargepole. Compare your defence to that one, it seems to be very similar and, although IANAL, I would go with it.

neopl

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If you receive a judgment against you and you PAY IT within the specified time, it will not go on your record. You can pay the original PCN any time up to walking into court.

Is your defence based on one of the concise defences from the NEWBIE thread? Here is a link to one based on one by Bargepole. Compare your defence to that one, it seems to be very similar and, although IANAL, I would go with it.

The problem with this defence is that it also so strongly relies on having a tenancy agreement which gives the right to park, I do not have any tenancy agreement. My landlord has offered to provide any help necessary, but he also states he does not have any documents which would specify parking.


edit. And yes, my defence is based on one of the ones from the NEWBIES thread.

nosferatu1001

Of course he has something, he has a lease!
Ask him for a copy of hte lease so you cna read it yourself
See what it says about his RIGHTS and EASEMENTS

Le_Kirk

As Nosferatu1001 says, the landlord must have something and YOU must have an AST, which must be based on the landlord's lease. what does it say in YOUR AST about rights to park?

The_Deep

If you do not have an AST the landlord may be breaking the law. He would certainly have trouble in evicting you. Also, you might would have trouble in getting repairs done. Look again.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't matter if his lease is silent about parking, if he is able to confirm that he has lived there/owned the place for xx years and has a right to park, or easement, and passed that right/easement to you.

How can you have a landlord but no tenancy agreement; that's not legal unless you are just a lodger?

Actually, I'm just considering paying up.

Nope, and too late for that, so please no wobbling now!

neopl

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It doesn't matter if his lease is silent about parking, if he is able to confirm that he has lived there/owned the place for xx years and has a right to park, or easement, and passed that right/easement to you.

How can you have a landlord but no tenancy agreement; that's not legal unless you are just a lodger?

Nope, and too late for that, so please no wobbling now!

Would it be helpful if he wrote a statement stating that he bought the house on date xxxx and has always since been allowed to park in the said car park (despite the fact that the space belongs to the city council and not him) and that there has never been parking enforcement in place, even though there is now. And that he passed this over to me before the parking restrictions were introduced.



Something to that effect?


In regards to the AST, we use to sign one every year, but I lived here for so many years and am on such good terms with the landlord that we both, over the years, lapsed in this practice, now I see that this was unwise. I did dig up my old tenancy agreement, from the years we use to sign it, and it states nothing of parking.

neopl

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Mention it again above. State that as per your letter of x, their SAR of Y date is not just incomplete but it is misleading as it states POFA is relevant when they are vcompletely aware this is land owned by a traffic authority (X council) and so can NEVER be relevant land.

Can you or someone please explain how I could find out once and for all if this parking space that is owned by the city council is 'not relevant land'?



VCS is pursing me as a a keeper (at least according to the SAR response.) I gather that this means that if they are pursing me as a keeper, and the parking is not relevant land, they have no case against me. But how can I be sure this is not relevant land? In my area it is the COUNTY council that deal with on street parking, with parking wardens, and the standard parking signs you see around the UK etc. The parking in front of my house is owned by the CITY council. Would they still be a traffic authority? Any clarification on this would be appreciated as I am planning on using this as my main life of defence.

Coupon-mad

Can you or someone please explain how I could find out once and for all if this parking space that is owned by the city council is 'not relevant land'?

The parking in front of my house is owned by the CITY council. Would they still be a traffic authority?

Look up your City Council's website, do they have a section on PCNs, Traffic orders, etc.?

neopl

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Look up your City Council's website, do they have a section on PCNs, Traffic orders, etc.?

I finally got an answer out of this council. There is no parking order for my street. Does this kill my 'not relevant land' defense, despite the fact that that oxford city council is considered a traffic authority ?


I base my assertion that Oxford city council is a traffic authority on the following..



A “traffic authority” is defined in POFA 2012 SCHEDULE 4 Section 56 Paragraph 3 (2)

“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)the Secretary of State;
(b)the Welsh Ministers;
©Transport for London;
(d)the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)a parish or community council;
(g)the Council of the Isles of Scilly

Oxford City is a county borough & thus Oxford City Council is a traffic authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_borough




In Oxford it is the Oxfordshire County Council that deals with the on street parking enforced by their parking wardens, and therefore it is the Oxfordshire County Council that has information on their website about parking orders and PCNs, but the little car park next to my house is owned by the Oxford City Council, (despite the fact that the house is not, as I rent from a private landlord) and thus they hire a private firm (VCS) for enforcement.