Lbc for parking in my own bay

nosferatu1001

I would disgaree with Iamemanresu there

The leaseholder, once they have an allocated and leased space, has rights to use that space as they see fit within the restrictions of the lease. This will include allowing other vehicles to park there frmo time to time, entirely at their own discretion. The landholder cannot restrict that grant, not post facto.

So I would leave 10 in.

Yes, mention that the claimant is also inconsitent in enforcing. But the primary point MUST BE

This is YOUR SPACE
The Claimant is a complete stranger
Your lease grants you rights to the space that the claimant has NO ability to alter.

Loadsofchildren123

neeraj89 wrote: »

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________


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") and avers that his leasehold rights included sole rights to park in the allocated space identified and defined in the lease ("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. . The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from my previous vehicle having been parked in September 2017 in my own private bay for which I am the leaseholder in my own residential address.

2. The Defendant's purchase of the lease to the property ("the lease") was completed on 9 June 2017. In February 2017 my wife and I had reserved a new built two bedroom flat with Bellway Homes in West Drayton for which the completion was done on 9th June 2017. One of our reasons to but this flat with Bellway Homes was that the purchase price included an allocated parking bay which forms a part of the LEASE of the property. I have attached a copy of the lease agreement with this defence statement. The property and the allocated parking bay have been marked in RED in the LEASE. Note: this is all relevant, but you would put it in your WS not the Defence. The Defence is just he LEGAL points, the WS is all the surrounding facts.

3. The lease grants the Defendant the right to park a vehicle in the space identified therein as his allocated space ([insert clause and schedule number]). This right is not qualified with any requirement to display a permit. When the Defendant moved into the property, he was met by the freeholder's [what did they describe themselves as, the Handover Manager?]. No mention of any restrictions or qualifications in relation to the parking space were communicated to the Defendant by the Handover Manager. I have been parking my car on the allocated bay from the time we were handed over the property and there was no mention of displaying a parking permit at that time or in future 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 authorised to operate at [development].

4. In September 2017 I received 6 Parking Charge Notices for parking in my own allocated bay. I contacted the Ms. XXXX the Handover Manager for Bellway Homes who did the handover of my flat but she refused to assist me. I also contacted Mr. XXXX who used to work for Gateway property Management at that time and was responsible for the management of the Estate but he refused to intervene and said that he could have done better if there was only 1 PCN but can!!!8217;t help for 6 PCN!!!8217;s. Both correspondence with Ms.XXXX and Mr. XXXX are attached with this defence letter. all relevant, but for your WS not the Defence

5. On 22nd March 2018, we had a meeting with our estate management company GATEWAY and in that meeting I raised this point about home owners getting PCN!!!8217;s in their own allocated parking bay on which she said to send her the details of the PCN!!!8217;s and she will request for them to be cancelled. We exchanged a few emails and I pointed out most of the clauses in the lease related to parking and not one of them states a need to display a valid permit in order to park the car to which Ms. XXXX agreed but didn!!!8217;t intervene to do the right thing by cancelling the PCN!!!8217;s. Correspondence with Ms.XXXX attached with this deference letter. again, this is all info for your WS, not the defence

6. On 28th March 2018 I sent a letter to Bellway Homes clearly mentioning that they have breached the T&C!!!8217;s of the lease and I also pointed out clauses from the lease which related to parking but Bellway didn!!!8217;t provide any of the documents requested showing proof that the PERMIT was delivered to my address before the PCN!!!8217;s were issued and a copy of this was also sent to Gladstones solicitors Limited. as above

7. 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.


8. 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 check this is correct name of company] has at any time been entitled under the lease to introduce new "Estate Regulations".



9. 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).


10. 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

. The Defendant denies that he was at any time notified in writing of any regulations relating to his parking space.



10. Therefore, the Defendant avers that any attempt by the freeholder to introduce parking regulations is void, for the reasons set out in paragraphs [8 and 9] above.


11. Clause x in Schedule x of the lease provides that no provisions of the lease can be enforced by a third party (clause x, Schedule x). The Defendant avers that the Claimant is a third party and therefore denies that the Claimant has any right to bring this claim.


Below are the few points supported with clauses from my Lease:

The Management Company (Gateway Property Management Ltd) has said it was Bellway who brought in Parking and Property Management Limited. However, the Lease does not permit this: it only permits the Management Company to introduce new "Estate Regulations", not Bellway (Clause 10 of Schedule 7)

In any event, the right of the Management Company to introduce new Estate Regulations is well defined in the lease and it does not extend to the Car Parking Spaces but only to the Estate Communal Areas and the buildings (clause 10, Schedule 7).

The terms of the lease are clear: Bellway has no right to introduce new obligations relating to the parking; the Management Company has rights to introduce new Estate Regulations, however these apply to the Estate Communal Areas (which do not include the Car Parking Spaces) and the buildings only, and must be notified to leaseholders in writing; P&PM has no right under the lease to enforce any parking rules.

8. 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 spte 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.

9. The Claimant!!!8217;s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd, have has artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £806.36. The Defendant denies that such I submit the 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.

10. Even if the Claimant were properly authorised to operate on, inter alia, the Defendant's parking space, the Defendant denies that he is liable because the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for a parking charge if a valid the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK) has been served. No valid NtK was served and the Defendant cannot therefore be liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle. P&PM do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

11. I would like the Court to take note that I was then aggressively harassed by letter after letter demanding money, despite not being liable. this is for the WS

12. The allegation appears to be for parking in own parking bay for which I am the leaseholder. However, as per the contract between the landowner and myself i.e. the LEASE nowhere states the need for a valid parking permit to be displayed and also there is no evidence of the parking permit being given to me before issue the PCN!!!8217;s. I had to pay £10.00 as I was so frustrated with receiving Parking Charge Notices and wanted them to get off my back so I could use my own property peacefully. explain this in your WS

13. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

You might want to consider putting in a counterclaim for trespass. This would be something like:

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 [if you're making one] are true.

(Defendant) (Date)

This needs to be written in the third person.
You need to make clear what you admit or deny, and what you claim are the true facts (you "aver" these).
I've included additions in red and notes in green.


I also think you need to incorporate your old para 2 into para 1 (date of your purchase and definition of "the lease")
I'd make para 1 say:
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 park in the allocated space identified and defined therein ("the parking space").

Loadsofchildren123

And in the tramlines call it "Defence and Counterclaim" not Defence Statement.

Loadsofchildren123

at 3 I'd say "at that time or since" about the fact that you were never told about a permit


and at 5 I think say "properly authorised" rather than just authorised.


And add at end of 7 "but that such engagement was not authorised by the terms of the lease".

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

at 3 I'd say "at that time or since" about the fact that you were never told about a permit


and at 5 I think say "properly authorised" rather than just authorised.


And add at end of 7 "but that such engagement was not authorised by the terms of the lease".

Thanks a lot for you help.

I will make the changes today and upload the revised one by late evening.
thanks

Loadsofchildren123

I'd like to go over it again. I think it needs to draw together the various points to make it read better - eg:


1. The Defendant denies that there 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).


2. The Defendant denies that he 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 under the terms of the lease.


3. The Defendant denies that there can have been any contract between driver and Claimant because the freeholder (who it is understood contracted with the Claimant to operate on the relevant land) had no power to authorise the Claimant to carry out any activities in respect of the Defendant's parking space, nor to impose upon the Defendant a contractual relationship with the Claimant, nor to authorise the Claimant to bring proceedings against the Defendant in relation to the use of his parking space.


4. 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 (the Claimant being such a third party).


I'm not clear what you're arguing about driver. Is it the case that you and your wife share the car so it could have been either of you who was driving on those particular days? Are you confident in denying you were the driver? If not, then say "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 (then in your WS explain how the car is used by both of you and you simply can't remember who would have been driving it at the time it was parked and then left for 6 days while it accumulated pcns). You need to be careful separating yourself from the driver and making it clear that the driver was exercising your rights.


Do some work on it and repost so that we can have another look at it.

neeraj89

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 park in the allocated space identified and defined therein ("he 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 space identified therein as his allocated space (Clause 5, Schedule 9). This right is not qualified with any requirement to display a permit. 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 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 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 (the Claimant being such a third party).


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.

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 and 8] 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.

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, the Defendant denies that he is liable because the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for a parking charge if a valid Notice to Keeper (NTK) has been served. No 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

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I'm not clear what you're arguing about driver. Is it the case that you and your wife share the car so it could have been either of you who was driving on those particular days? Are you confident in denying you were the driver? If not, then say "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 (then in your WS explain how the car is used by both of you and you simply can't remember who would have been driving it at the time it was parked and then left for 6 days while it accumulated pcns). You need to be careful separating yourself from the driver and making it clear that the driver was exercising your rights.

My wife drives the car more than I do and in reality it was my wife that found the PCN's not me. I even stated this to the HANDOVER MANAGER when they questioned me why I didn't contact them when I got the first ticket. My email to them on

"As you asked that why I didn't contact them after my first ticket, so here is the reason why


We got the first ticket on 08/09/2017 which was a Friday and we didn't use the car (didn't go towards it) till Monday evening.


On Tuesday morning when my wife (Jyoti) took the car for office she saw that we had 2 tickets were on the car 1 ticket was on the floor. Total 3 tickets

On the same day I appealed for the 1st ticket via their website as its written on the ticket that they don't accept appeals over the phone so I didn't call them.


They replied to my appeal which they rejected in and mentioned they same telephone number (PAYMENT LINE) to inquire about parking permits. Why can't they just write this on the parking charge notice itself.



I called them on the same day and informed them that I haven't received my PERMIT so I am not liable to pay for these fines. But the insisted that permits were issued and if I need a new permit I would have to pay £ 10.00, which I did as I wanted to park the car in my own bay.


Till I got a reply on my 1st appeal I had already got 6 tickets.


I didn't call them cause the PCN clearly stated that all appeals had to be done via their website.

"

neeraj89

Do I have to submit a witness statement also with the defense statement ??

KeithP

Not with the Defence, no.

You should submit a Witness Statement together with evidence when asked for it later.