Gladstones court case for parking in own residential bay

Jillabean

This is what I have so far


Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. 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 evidenced 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. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxxxxxx which is the subject of these proceedings.
4. It is admitted that on xxxxx the Defendant's vehicle was parked at xxxxx
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted due to being the leaseholder of xxxxxxxxxxx, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land in the individual bay. 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, and the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
6. The Defendant avers that the operator 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.
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; although in fact there was a valid permit on clear display, which the defendant believes has been purposely cropped out of the photographs issued by the claimant.
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms.
8. 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.
9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
10. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

Guys_Dad

I would further put your permit where it was and take a photo replicating the warden's photo. Then take a series walking round the car clearly showing that from different viewpoints, the permit is perfectly visible. Include them in your evidence pack.

The_Deep

It may be worthwhile, when you have won, asking the judge for unreasonable behaviour costs. Presumably you informed the PPC that you had a leasehold right to park there, but they took you to court anyway.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=cpr+27.14+2+g&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=5bd1bdfa8f694f31b48ef694ea202f21&PC=ACTS&sp=7&ghc=1&qs=SC&pq=cpr27.14&sk=SC6&sc=8-8&cvid=5bd1bdfa8f694f31b48ef694ea202f21&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB

Also investigate whether they have breached you rights under the Data Protection Act. It is time these residential PCNs were firmly stamped on.

Another way to inconvenience them is to issue a letter before claim.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rlm?msclkid=5a7c2b559f261e4ec4e7719faba752ab&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BSN%20-%20Letter%20before%20action&utm_term=free%20letter%20before%20action&utm_content=Exact%20-%20Letter%20before%20action

Jillabean

I have printed pictures showing the one which the parking inspector took and then one taken by me at the exact same point showing the permit
The joke of it is the parking inspector would have had to be looking directly at the permit to have taken the picture in the first place
So corrupt

Redx

bear in mind that your evidence for the court goes in later in the process

for the moment you are drafting your defence as a document that tells the initial judge that reads it if there is a case to answer, so legal arguments that a legally trained judge will decide upon, based on laws and legal precedents etc

evidence and witness statements and copies of the lease etc are submitted to your local court a few weeks before the hearing

and as stated already , LISTEN to what poeople like bargepole and johnnersh are telling you , we understand your frustration at what the parking chimp did, but if your lease gives you primacy of contract to park and says nothing about permits , use the heavy hitting ammo to blast your opponent, dont get bogged down in the nitty gritty side issues and corruption just yet , save that for your WS later

we already know its a corrupt system, so do the MP,s that passed the PRIVATE PARKING BILL second reading unanimously on 02 feb 2018

Coupon-mad

Jillabean wrote: »

I have printed pictures showing the one which the parking inspector took and then one taken by me at the exact same point showing the permit.
The joke of it is the parking inspector would have had to be looking directly at the permit to have taken the picture in the first place.
So corrupt

He's not an inspector or a warden.

Remove the VRN from the above draft, too much information!

Show us the 'cropped' photo they took.

BTW, you do not submit your photos with the defence. Your photos/evidence comes later.

I would also send a SAR* to this Claimant, after you've submitted your defence, requiring ALL photos taken of this vehicle on that day and all data held about you and the vehicle/VRN.

Personally I would in fact have the secondary argument about signage, as Johnersh suggests in his template. It is a secondary argument to the primary defence and seems a huge mistake not to even mention the signs so they are not even looked at, if the Judge decides you didn't have primacy of contract. You then have zero safety net and I feel uncomfortable with that.

So, bargepole and I will have to agree to disagree on this specific aspect of defences, but I bow to the fact he attends court hearings and I don't.



*Google it.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Personally I would in fact have the secondary argument about signage, as Johnersh suggests in his template. It is a secondary argument to the primary defence and seems a huge mistake not to even mention the signs so they are not even looked at, if the Judge decides you didn't have primacy of contract. You then have zero safety net and I feel uncomfortable with that.

So, bargepole and I will have to agree to disagree on this specific aspect of defences, but I bow to the fact he attends court hearings and I don't.

If the OP is unlucky enough to get a Judge who is so clueless that he/she doesn't recognise that the lease terms override any purported terms conveyed by the signage, then it's vanishingly unlikely that they would consider the signs to be incapable of forming a contract, especially as the OP would be familiar with the wording on a daily basis.

If you read any of the persuasive Judgments on this aspect - Jopson v Homeguard, PACE v Noor, Link v Parkinson et al, the clarity, position and wording of the respective signs is not considered. The whole case turns on the lease contract, and whether the signs are capable of varying it.

Coupon-mad

I agree, but worry about the lack of safety net, as we know such Judges exist.

Guys_Dad

Jillabean wrote: »

I have printed pictures showing the one which the parking inspector took and then one taken by me at the exact same point showing the permit
The joke of it is the parking inspector would have had to be looking directly at the permit to have taken the picture in the first place
So corrupt

The way you have written that actually goes against your defence!

I said to replicate the warden's photo that hides your permit, to match his, and then some from different angles showing the permit. If you take one from the same place that shows the permit, and his photo didn't, then that backs up the PPC claim.

Can you see that???

Jillabean

It’s hard to explain without showing the pictures but it won’t let me upload them
I wanted to show how he had cut the window off on one side of the car the one where the permit was placed but not on the other side
To honest it’s pretty obvious to see from the pictures he took
I will try and upload them again tomorrow