Gladstones Claim form

Lee1000

The driver does not have a copy of the lease any more. He moved out long ago

Lee1000

Yes. In one of Gladstones threatening letters to me, they included... "Our client relies on the case Parking Eye v Beavis 2015"

Quentin

Lee1000 wrote: »

The driver does not have a copy of the lease any more. He moved out long ago

Can't he get one or a copy from an ex neighbour??

Lee1000

I might be able to get it from the land registry

Coupon-mad

Have a look at this thread that I assume you have already read, seeing as it's right next to yours today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5776952

That defence has headings and is clearer & less generic than the ones you've found so far.

Also, you need to decide:

- are you going to rely on the POFA issue and never say who was driving, even though that might make it hard (if the keeper/defendant WAS the driver) to explain what happened, to a Judge?

- or, think about forgetting the minor wording issue (no, it's not enough to win a case, IMHO), drop all reference to the POFA, defend as driver (if the Defendant was) and that makes it easier to appear as an honest witness and show all evidence of what the real defence centres around, which might be 'derogation from grant', Jopson v Homeguard applying, or might turn on the fact: 'UKCPM's signs were pants' or it might mainly be about:

'UKCPM not having landowner authority, nor showing an overriding legitimate interest in pursuing a sum way in excess of any damages the landowner could have sought, because fining legitimate residents is neither supported under residents' lease agreement rights to peaceful enjoyment, nor is it carried by the same argument about retail park commercial spaces as excused ParkingEye from the penalty rule (that case was the exception rather than the rule and only applies where the facts are similar, unlike here).

Why are there not enough xxx spaces?

Were any removed/covered by any building works, or what? Did there used to be more?

Lee1000

I was genuinely not the driver. So was not there on the day.
Th driver was a tenant in a residential block and could use any parking space marked xxx. Apparently there were never enough parking bays marked xxx so occasionally tenants would use a bay marked yyy. I am told they were for electric cars and hardly ever used.

I now have the lease and looking through it

Thanks for your reply

Coupon-mad

I was genuinely not the driver. So was not there on the day.

Good, then you can rightly deny liability and mention the POFA.

Th driver was a tenant in a residential block and could use any parking space marked xxx. Apparently there were never enough parking bays marked xxx so occasionally tenants would use a bay marked yyy. I am told they were for electric cars and hardly ever used.

Is there any valid argument that the bays were only marked on the ground in scuffed paint which wasn't visible when the driver actually parked (in the dark)? i.e. they looked like xxx bays, hard to make out as the area is not well lit/marked - if true.

Lee1000

I'll drive round to the car park and take a look.
Presumably I can go with POFA and also the residential car park issues

Coupon-mad

Yes, all of it can be included, as you were not driving.

I would start the defence again, more like the one I showed you, with headings.

Lee1000

My problem is - If i confirm that I was not the driver, how can I then say the driver parked in this particular parking spot because there were no valid parking spots available. If I do that I am implying that I know who the driver was

Also I have the tenancy agreement but this does not include anything about parking rules. Just that a parking space is provided