Ace Security FIRST APPEAL ARGH!

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor 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 lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex 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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

System

What are the facts in this case

1. It appears you are a tenant of a Housing Association
2. It appears you have 3 parking charges from Ace
3. It seems you applied to Ace for a permit and were given a week's grace before they started ticketing you.

So to the questions

a. Do Ace issue permits and how long did they take to issue one
b. Were you entitled to a permit and do you have one now
c. How many tickets did you get and for what reason(s)

akzy1990

a. Do Ace issue permits and how long did they take to issue one
- Ace do not issue permits and it is the landlord. We pay for our parking space and have done so since moving into the property on our tenancy agreement. Ace came out of nowhere, put up signs, and then permits were needed.

b. Were you entitled to a permit and do you have one now
-We are entitled to a permit and have had one for a previous car for a different registered keeper. This car was in an accident and since then a permit was not re-issued. I have contacted the housing association since January to tell them to replace it and they have not done so. My most recent contact with them was a month ago and they have done nothing but state a grace period was offered (from the housing association) after establishing I was a rightful tenant. They said they have no time frame for permits over the phone which I was bemused by. I have lodged a complaint and will be writing a letter to the local MP who I have met before.

c. How many tickets did you get and for what reason(s)
- 3 tickets and they were for not displaying a valid permit.

System

Bit concerned on this one.

1. It appears to be Housing Authority land unless you were parked on your own space.
2. If it was HA land, then you follow their rules - the ones on the signs
3. You say that the HA checked to see if you were a " rightful tenant" which suggests that you are a sub-tenant of a HA tenant and as such your rights to a parking space/permit are either limited or non-existant
4. The lack of a permit since January is a bit odd in that you either haven't chased it, or under the new rules you are not entitled to a permit.

Bottom line is to chase up with the HA why you haven't received a permit and a full explanation of it.

You should be able to use a Subject Access Request or Freedom of Information to get some missing information but a direct approach to the HA would be best. Try the Neighborhood office/officer.

I may have misunderstood something but the HA has the answer.

Lastly there is a case called Pace (Ace) v Noor that you might want to look up and read.

Umkomaas

Lastly there is a case called Pace (Ace) v Noor that you might want to look up and read

CS041 on this list:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

akzy1990

Its our space which we pay for every week. Outside of the bays no-one is allowed to park. We are entitled to the permit but I am chasing it up with a complaint.

System

Its our space which we pay for every week.

Who do you pay? Your landlord or the HA?

We are entitled to the permit

You had a permit on the old rules. Has anything changed for others as well as yourself?

akzy1990

We pay the housing association, we have a tenancy agreement which hasn't changed since we started living here. it hasn't changed for our neighbours as i have checked with them. I was reading through the Nor case which is super helpful!!!

akzy1990

i have received a letter asking from the court asking me if i contest the claims, below is my defence which i think is well suited to my circumstances but any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

Preliminary

!!!8232;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 unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.!!!8232;!!!8232;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.!!!8232;!!!8232;Background

!!!8232;3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ******** which is the subject of these proceedings.

!!!8232;4. It is admitted that on ****** and ********* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ****** !!!!8232;!!!8232;

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.!!!!8232;

5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"

)!!!8232;5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:!!!8232;

5.2.1. There was a relevant obligation; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and!!!8232;

5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.!!!8232;It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.!!!!!8232;!!!8232;

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.!!!8232;
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

!!!8232;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 **********, 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 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.!!!8232;!!!8232;

7. 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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. Accordingly it is denied that:

!!!8232;7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant

!!!8232;7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and!

!!!8232;7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.!!!8232;!!!8232;Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
!!!8232;
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon!ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis!(2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.!!!8232;

8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.!!!!8232;

8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;!!!!8232;

8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

!!!8232;8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in!J Spurling v Bradshaw![1956] EWCA Civ 3

!!!8232;8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with!ParkingEye!distinguished.
!!!8232;
9. 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.!!!8232;!!!8232;

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.!!!8232;!!!8232;

11. 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.

12. It is implicit in 5.1 insofar as the claimant is limited to POFA, that they can only recover what POFA allows. At 10 and 11 the sums then claimed are denied (usually £160 by then) and interest on that.!Under the county court rules, the interest may well accrue on £100 if awarded, but not a greater sum than they are permitted to recover.
!!!8232;

KeithP

So you have received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, is that right?

What is the Date of Issue on that Claim Form?

Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service to buy an extra fourteen days to prepare your Defence?

There is a pictorial guide, in a Dropbox file, linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread which explains how to do the AoS.