Link Parking County Court

ControlTheLeaf

Hi everyone!

Link Parking issued us a ticket on our very first day but our letting agent cancelled it before it got any further but few months ago, I was slapped with another parking charge notice for parking in our flat's allocated bay (there's only around 30 bays in our gated residential compound) for 'Not clearly displaying a valid permit'. However the permit was visible on the passenger seat. They took photographs of the car in it's bay, with very angled pictures of the windows and the dash but avoiding the seat.

I appealed it with Link, and unsurprisingly it was rejected. Now I have received a County Court Claim form. I have submitted my acknowledgement but need to get my defence in. Please could anyone help?

The tenancy agreement says:
-The tenant acknowledges that in order to gain access to the parking area allocated to the Property a current parking permit is required.
-The Tenant agrees that any fines or penalties imposed upon the Tenant as a resut of parking within the environs of the Property without either a current parking permit or outside the allocated parking area will be payable upon demand by the Tenant.

The sign says:
Vehicles must fully display a valid permit and park within the confines of a marked bay.
Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

We can help once you show us the draft defence, and luckily for you, Johnersh (a solicitor who posts here) wrote one for residential cases that's in the NEWBIES thread.

Adapt that one & give us a draft to comment on.

Meanwhile make sure once the defence is in, that you complain to your MP about this trash, after watching the debate in Parliament. Follow the links here to fire you up about this 'OUTRAGEOUS SCAM' (Hansard):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73963105#post73963105

The_Deep

Own space parking fines are very difficult for a PPC to win in court, but they keep trying, read this

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/own-parking-space/

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and B]residential complex[/B] tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

ControlTheLeaf

Great, sounds hopeful!
I will get a draft on here very soon.
Thank you both

ControlTheLeaf

I was wondering if anyone could pick some holes and check this defence for me please?
Also, I understand that I should send this in via email or post but do I still need to do anything with MCOL as well?

All of the thanks in advance!



Claim Number XXXXXXXXXX
!
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.

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.

3.1 !!!It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]!
3.2!! !The Parking Charge Notice was appealed to the Claimant directly and was rejected on vague grounds.
3.3!!! The Defendant!!!8217;s vehicle has parked in the allocated bay and has been since [date] up until the ticket was issued on the [date]. No other car is entitled to park in our space as each space is designated to each flat.

4. Misleading evidential photographs
4.1! The car permit was in the vehicle at the given time and will have been seen when the photos were taken. The photos whilst appearing to look thorough are misleading as they failed to photograph the passenger seat. The permit will have been seen when looking through the vehicle!!!8217;s passenger window.


5 !Distinguished features
5.1 !This case is distinguished from that of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that the alleged offense took place in a residential security fenced car park with allocated marked bays for each flat where as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis was in on a retail park owned by British Airways Pension Fund. Additionally, unlike this alleged offense Beavis was in a time constrained environment.
!
5.2! !Furthermore, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore mean that the issued Parking Charge Notice is either an unenforceable penalty (which a private company is unable to issue) or a speculative invoice.


5.3!! One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying - this is not applicable to this case. As the defendant was parking in their allocated space it is then considered that there is no legitimate interest, the charge would therefore be as previously mentioned, an unenforceable penalty or speculative invoice.



Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. 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 a specific display position of a valid parking permit.


6.1!!! The costs are manifestly excessive and unconscionable considering the defendant lives at the address and pays rent on the property which includes the use of the allocated parking space. The bay in question is designated to only the Defendant's home.
!
6.2!! The Defendant has a valid permit and was parked within the lines, and the lease states that !!!8216;resident needs a valid permit to park!!!8217;.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s 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.

8. Accordingly it is denied that:
8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
Failure to set out clearly parking terms

9.! The signage specifies that a permit is displayed but the signage and lease is not specific about the exact position. The permit was in clear view when viewed from the outside of the vehicle.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

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

Coupon-mad

I understand that I should send this in via email or post but do I still need to do anything with MCOL as well?

Email as an attachment, to the CCBCAQ email address on the CCBC contact page. Subject line must contain the claim number and 'Defence attached' of course!

Do not post the defence as well, and do not touch MCOL except we hope you have now done the AOS as shown in pictures in a clear walk through AOS link, in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

offense

...is spelt wrong, but change it anyway to 'contravention'.

ControlTheLeaf

Thanks, I submitted it on time (20th last month). I spoke to CCBC to make sure they got it, then Gladstones sent me their usual email of 'we want a paper hearing, or you have the choice to settle'.

I filled out a Directions Questionnare and sent it back within time, and was wondering when their deadline to send one in to the court is? Is it the same as my deadline?

nosferatu1001

Tey have the same deadline, theyu will have filed it already
Next is allocation
Then hearing letter.

beamerguy

ControlTheLeaf wrote: »

Thanks, I submitted it on time (20th last month). I spoke to CCBC to make sure they got it, then Gladstones sent me their usual email of 'we want a paper hearing, or you have the choice to settle'.

I filled out a Directions Questionnare and sent it back within time, and was wondering when their deadline to send one in to the court is? Is it the same as my deadline?

You have done it correctly.

Don't be fooled by Gladstones offering a paper hearing,
They are unsure themselves and often when they get
to this stage, they often discontinue albiet at the last moment
Scammers try their luck to the very last

What does amaze us is the mentality of Link Parking ???

They have already experienced the incompetence of
Gladstones in court so they must be very gullible to
self harming

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gladstones

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=link+parking

ControlTheLeaf

Hi everyone!
Just updating on the situation. We have a win!
Received the court hearing date (31st July) and all the dates to send in witness statement, bundle etc.
Gladstones sent us a rather sad bundle where they had incorrect information like the location markings of their own signs on a map. I sent them back my own witness statement.

I have just received a letter from the court saying:

Upon claimant failing to comply with paragraph 2 of the order (Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track) it is ordered that The Claim stands struck out and the 31 July 2018 hearing is vacated.

Yay!

Castle

ControlTheLeaf wrote: »

I have just received a letter from the court saying:

Upon claimant failing to comply with paragraph 2 of the order (Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track) it is ordered that The Claim stands struck out and the 31 July 2018 hearing is vacated.

Yay!

I'm guessing that paragraph 2 refers to their failure to pay the hearing fee?