Lbc for parking in my own bay

Coupon-mad

The Defendant claims an injunction prohibiting the Claimant from any further acts of trespass and £500 in damages.

AFAIK you could only claim for the cost of an injunction, if you've already taken one out. Your counterclaim is sparse, seems to me.

neeraj89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

AFAIK you could only claim for the cost of an injunction, if you've already taken one out. Your counterclaim is sparse, seems to me.

This was one of the questions ticking in my head..

do you'll recommend to put a counterclaim?? . I honestly don't want any money from them and don't want this to backfire.

I have added for now but had thought of asking this before i send it out

Coupon-mad

Then no, don't do a counterclaim.

You'd need to argue it in court and the counter-claim would cost you a court fee now, and maybe a hearing fee later if the main claim is discontinued.

neeraj89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Then no, don't do a counterclaim.

You'd need to argue it in court and the counter-claim would cost you a court fee now, and maybe a hearing fee later if the main claim is discontinued.

ok. I will remove the counterclaim.

Does the rest look good ??
I will be sending a copy of my lease with the defense - should i mention this in the letter ?

if all is ok. Will post it to the court today

Loadsofchildren123

neeraj89 wrote: »

Revised Defence and counterclaim statement.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXX

Between

PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)

-and-


[XXXXXXXX]
(Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
___________________________________________________________________________


The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant was at all times the leaseholder of Flat [address] ("the property"). He purchased the lease to the property on 9 June 2017 ("the lease"). The Defendant avers that the lease granted him sole rights to use the allocated space identified and defined therein for the purpose of parking a vehicle ("the parking space").

2. The Defendant admits that at the relevant time he was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies being the driver and avers that his vehicle was at all relevant times parked in the parking space.

3. The lease grants the Defendant the right to park a vehicle in the parking space identified therein as his allocated space (Clause 5, Schedule 9). This right is not qualified with any requirement to display a permit. It includes the right to park a vehicle not necessarily owned or driven by the Defendant. When the Defendant moved into the property, he was met by the freeholder's Handover Manager and there was no mention of any restrictions or qualifications in relation to the parking space that were communicated to the Defendant by the Handover Manager.

4. The Defendant denies that on the date he moved into the property the Claimant was operating, or authorised to operate at [address of development].

5. The Defendant denies that the Claimant was thereafter properly authorised to operate at [development].

6. The Defendant avers that the freeholder purported to engage the services of the Claimant and purported to authorise them to operate at [development address] on or about x date but that such engagement was not authorised by the terms of the lease

7. The Defendant admits that under the terms of the lease, the Management Company (which is not the Claimant but Gateway Property Management Limited) is entitled to introduce new "Estate Regulations" (Clause 10, Schedule 7). The Defendant denies that the freeholder Bellway Homes Limited has at any time been entitled under the lease to introduce new "Estate Regulations".

8. The Defendant denies that, in any event, the right to introduce new "Estate Regulations" includes the right to introduce any such regulations in respect of the parking space because the right, as defined in the lease, does not extend to the parking space but only to the Estate Communal Areas and the buildings, which do not include any of the car parking spaces at the development, including the Defendant's parking space (clause 10, Schedule 7).


9. The Defendant denies that any contract can have been formed between driver and Claimant, because the Claimant cannot have made any valid offer of parking in respect of the Defendant's parking space which was capable of acceptance, nor was there any consideration flowing, because the Defendant at all relevant times already had the right, to the exclusion of all others, to park in the parking space under the terms of the lease or to authorise others to do so (so long as such parking was within the terms of the lease, which he avers it was).

10. The Defendant denies that he, or any third party authorised by him to park in the parking space, was obliged to comply with any terms and conditions which the Claimant might have attempted to impose through the display of signage (although the display of signage is not admitted and the Claimant is put to full proof thereof) - specifically the requirement to display a permit - because he already had the right to park in the parking space, and to authorise others to do so, under the terms of the lease.

11. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has locus standi to bring this claim because the lease specifically prohibits the freeholder/management company's rights being enforced by third parties - Clause 17 in Schedule 7 of the lease. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is a third party. If it is claimed that the Defendant has breached the terms of the lease in relation to the use of the parking space, then this is a matter between him and the freeholder and/or the management company, in accordance with the terms of the lease.


12. Even if the freeholder had been entitled to contract with the Claimant to operate on the car parking spaces, including the Defendant's parking space, and even if the new requirement by the Claimant to keep and display a parking permit comes within the definition of a new "Estate Regulation", such new regulations can only be introduced if they are notified to leaseholders in writing (clause 10, Schedule 7). The Defendant denies that he was at any time notified in writing of any regulations relating to his parking space.

13. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates and puts the Claimant to full proof thereof " rather than deny it. you've already denied this

14. Therefore, the Defendant avers that any attempt by the freeholder to introduce parking regulations is void, for the reasons set out in paragraphs [7, 8 and 12] above.

15. Clause 17 in Schedule 7 of the lease provides that no provisions of the lease can be enforced by a third party. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is a third party and therefore denies that the Claimant has any right to bring this claim. this repeats para 11 so I've incorporated it there

16. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, in spite of repeated requests by the Defendant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

17. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £806.36. The Defendant denies that such added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules.

18. Even if the Claimant were properly authorised to operate on, inter alia, the Defendant's parking space, and even if the Claimant were able to impose further conditions on the Defendant's use of the parking space, and even if the Claimant has locus standi to bring this claim, and even if there were a contract formed between the driver and the Claimant (all of which, for the avoidance of doubt is denied), the Defendant denies that he is liable for any breach thereof as the registered keeper of the vehicle, because the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ("POFA"). POFA provides that a registered keeper can only be held liable for a parking charge if a valid Notice to Keeper (NTK) has been served. The Defendant denies that any valid NTK was served and the Defendant cannot therefore be liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

19. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendants costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Counterclaim

The Claimant has trespassed on the Defendant's vehicle and on his parking space by entering onto the parking space and placing parking charge notices on his vehicle on six occasions without proper authority, as set out above (set out dates).

The Defendant claims an injunction prohibiting the Claimant from any further acts of trespass and £500 in damages.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement and counterclaim are true

Looks good to me, just a bit of tidying up in my amendments/notes. It reads logically and sensibly.

Loadsofchildren123

You have to pay a fee for the counterclaim. I think it's £25.
Have you ever written to the PPC to tell them that they must not trespass on your vehicle/to complain about this? I'm not sure you have. They may complain that you haven't raised this before under the pre-action protocol. Against this, you'd say that there was no time to raise it, it's clearly an appropriate counterclaim and they must know from your previous correspondence/appeals (did you write/make any?) that the space is yours, even if trespass hasn't been specifically mentioned - it's really there as a negotiating tactic to pressurise them into backing off.

Loadsofchildren123

Counterclaim

The Defendant repeats the matters set out in paragraphs 1-3 and 7-10 above.The Claimant has trespassed on the Defendant's vehicle and on the parking space by entering onto the parking space and placing parking charge notices on his vehicle on six occasions without proper authority, as set out above (set out dates).

The Defendant claims an injunction prohibiting the Claimant from any further acts of trespass and £500 in damages.

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

You have to pay a fee for the counterclaim. I think it's £25.
Have you ever written to the PPC to tell them that they must not trespass on your vehicle/to complain about this? I'm not sure you have. They may complain that you haven't raised this before under the pre-action protocol. Against this, you'd say that there was no time to raise it, it's clearly an appropriate counterclaim and they must know from your previous correspondence/appeals (did you write/make any?) that the space is yours, even if trespass hasn't been specifically mentioned - it's really there as a negotiating tactic to pressurise them into backing off.

The only instance I contacted the PPC regarding is when i appealed to the 6 PCN's. My appeal was a bellow:

PCN REF: xxxx
Vehicle registration number: xxxxxx
Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle? YES
Were you the driver of the vehicle: YES
Full Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Address Line 1: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Address Line 2: xxxxxxxxxx
Town/City: xxxxxxxxxxxx
County: xxxxxxxx
Postcode: xxxxx
Your Email (required): xxxx
Telephone Number: xxxxx
Add Supporting File -

Please explain your reason for appeal:
We have been receiving parking notices for parking in our own designated area. (Car park bay 23)
till now we have not received any PARKING PERMIT to put on the vehicle.. Please advise when will we receive it and instruct the parking inspector not to put more notices as its not our fault if the permit hasn't been issued till now.
thanks

Datestamp: September 12, 2017
Timestamp: 4:57 pm

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

You have to pay a fee for the counterclaim. I think it's £25.
Have you ever written to the PPC to tell them that they must not trespass on your vehicle/to complain about this? I'm not sure you have. They may complain that you haven't raised this before under the pre-action protocol. Against this, you'd say that there was no time to raise it, it's clearly an appropriate counterclaim and they must know from your previous correspondence/appeals (did you write/make any?) that the space is yours, even if trespass hasn't been specifically mentioned - it's really there as a negotiating tactic to pressurise them into backing off.

Do I have to pay the court fee of £25.00 at the time of sending the defense statement
OR
I'll have to pay only if the judgement is given in my favor ??

I don't really want any monies form them so it is really necessary to send a counterclaim ?
.

neeraj89

I have read the defense and counterclaim form and it says if I am putting a counterclaim then I will have to pay the fees immediately so I'll skip the counterclaim.