Gladstones Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Good!

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 30/01/2019 £114.23

That will be capped at £95 but take proof of earnings/wage slip and try!

beamerguy

pokerish wrote: »

This is my costs schedule:

DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS


Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 30/01/2019 £114.23

Return mileage (8 miles return) from home address to Court £1.80

Parking near Court (estimate) £5.00

Sub-total £121.03 ======


Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (6 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £114.00

Postage: £4.22

Sub-total £118.22 ======



£ 239.25 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED
 

Now, that is a genuine claim even though it may be capped.

Unlike the fake add-ons from Gladstones that should also be capped.

The_Deep

As seen in the defendants bundle in point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle,

113 pages, for a parking ticket, in one's own space, I do not believe it.

If I were you, I would add a couple more hours to read all that waffle.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

nosferatu1001

Point 6 in your skeleton - havent you already made this point, in point 1?

pokerish

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes nnosferatu1001 you are right i have, please see below for my updated arguments.

I am the defendant in this case.
I would like to start by summarising my case. I parked in my own designated parking spot in an underground car park. This car park is fob controlled, and this can even be seen in a photograph on page 43 of the claimants bundle. My parking permit was on the dashboard, but a tissue was accidentally placed on top of it, covering part of the permit. This can be seen in page 82 of the claimant’s bundle. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual residents. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

Defendants Argument
1. Primacy of contract
1.1. As seen in the claimants bundle in point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle, my landlord has the “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
1.2. In my tenancy agreement, the only reference is “the tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space … to avoid being issued with a parking ticket.” In the final page under special conditions.
1.3. I upheld my tenancy agreement by using a parking permit. This can be seen in Exhibit A in the witness statement.
1.4. I have not directly signed a contract with the parking company, and my tenancy agreement does not mention them by name either.
1.5. Therefore my tenancy agreement overrides any suggested contract with the parking company.

2. Operator signs cannot override existing rights
2.1. The claimant refused my appeal where I demonstrated I have a parking permit as per my tenancy agreement and existing rights. The claimants response can be seen on page 78 of the claimant’s bundle.
2.2. The claimant states that “The fact you are a permit holder is not in dispute”, therefore the claimant accepts I have a permit, and permission to park in the allocated bay.
2.3. However the claimant then states that “as per the signage, retrospective evidence of authority to park is not accepted”.
2.4. Signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
“ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”
2.5. Therefore parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted, and the signage cannot override my existing rights.

Rebutting Claimant Evidence and Arguments
I will now refute the main points the claimant relies on.

3. Re point # in the claimants bundle.
3.1. On page 5 of the claimant’s bundle, the claimant is authorised by the property managing agent to restrict the parking to “Bay corresponding permit holders”.
3.2. I adhered to this restricted, and proved to the claimant that this was adhered to. Therefore as per the claimant’s contract with the property management service, should have stopped pursuing this claim.
3.3. I am not obliged to display the permit, and the claimant is not able to enforce this.
3.4. This proves my earlier point of the predatory nature of the claimant where they will not stop at anything to attempt to punish residents who have permission to park.

4. Re point #8, #11 and #12 in the Claimant’s bundle
4.1. The claimant refers to the Parking Eye V Beavis (2015) case in which they try to justify that 100.00 was not ‘excessive’ however the charges you are seeking are 160.00 per ticket.
4.2. The claimant has not been able to justify how the sum of £60 is “reasonable” as stated in point #12.
4.3. Point #8 also states that the charge is in the “Company’s legitimate interest”.
4.4. The claimant’s legitimate interest is to restrict parking to “bay corresponding permit holders only at all times in the allocated bays” as can be seen in page 5 of the claimant’s bundle
4.5. One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used.
4.6. In my case, it is in the claimant’s legitimate interest to charge those parking without a permit as a deterrent from parking in the car park in Regent’s Court.
4.7. I was a resident with a parking permit, and have proved this by providing my tenancy agreement and a permit. Therefore issuing me with a parking charge is NOT in their legitimate interest. Because there is no legitimate interest, this is deemed a penalty.
4.8. This case is distinguished from that of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that the alleged offense took place in a residential underground car park with fob controlled entrance 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.
4.9. 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.
4.10. 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.
4.11. Quite clearly the claimant is abusing their power as an agent of the landowner to try and penalise me for parking in my own space

5. Re point #7 in the Claimant’s bundle.
5.1. The claimant relies on the point that the signage is the contractual document.
5.2. The signs are unclear, and the photographs in the bundle prove this. The photographs are taken up close, and even then the small print about the fine is difficult to read.
5.3. On page 81 a picture of my car can be seen. Behind, left and right of the car, there is no sign visible.
5.4. I dispute the witness’s judgement that the signs, or more specifically the terms and conditions, were highly prominent. In general, prominence can be a subjective affair in which colours, fonts, height, size and ambient light all play a significant role in determining if ‘something’ is prominent.
5.5. The overall depiction of a sign being ‘prominent’ is significantly reduced by using a font of small size which makes core terms illegible from a vehicle.
5.6. Therefore I did not enter a contract with the parking agency.

6. Re point #16 in the Claimant’s bundle
6.1. The Claimant relies on Link v Blaney (May 2017) where the Claimant states any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore “any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.
6.2. The Claimant has included a land registry between ___ (my landlord) and ___ Developments Limited.
6.3. In point 16# the claimant exclaims that the landlord could not have given a right that was not hers to give.
6.4. Yet point 7 of my landlords lease on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle states that she has “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
6.5. This is enough to state that the landlord did have the right and passed this to me, contrary to what the claimant has stated.

7. Re point #15 in the Claimant’s bundle
7.1. I would like to state that part VI is not my lease, as the claimant incorrectly states, as I was a tenant. This is my landlord’s lease.
7.2. On page 111 of the claimant’s bundle, clause 8 states that no third party shall have any rights to enforce any term in the lease. Therefore the claimant is unable to use this point.
7.3. The paragraph that the claimant is relying on includes a subjective statement where they regard “good estate management” as “enforcing a parking scheme”.
7.4. If this was good estate management, then this parking scheme should be to deter non-residents, or residents without a permit parking in bays. However the claimant has contributed to poor estate management by causing undue distress to myself who has the right to park in my allocated space.


Thanks again

nosferatu1001

I find the permit bit confusing

Do the signs require the permit to be displayed? If so, then the tissue obscuring the permit potentially breaches this.
However "use the permit" is an ambiguous TA term - what is meant by "use"? Possess? Keep in teh vehicle for inspection if someone asks? Have in prominent display? So I dont know how this will go. Can you udnerstand the issue I have - you say you complied, yet state the tissue was in the way.

If you do go with you complied with TA - and I would! - then I would state you complied with your TA, and this is the only contract you need to comply with to have a right to park. You have no need to enter ANOTHER contrac t- the PPC has nothing to offer you, as they cannot offer you parking as you already have it, and they cannot modify the parking contract - your TA - as they are not a party to it, and they cannot enforce any terms in any case.

2) Is surely just the first argument over primacy again?? Certaiinly 2.1 -> 2.3 dont actually do anythign other than prove you have a permit, and that they are stating on the signs that retrospective authority isnt acceptbale - but that doesnt matter, as the signs dont matter.

2.4 and 2.5 surely apply to 1?

Not a fan of 4. Its a jumble, and mostly boils back to the vehicle was authorised by virtue of you being a tenant, and display of a permit is merely a convenience to the operator, without conceding that is is necessary to do so. Half of it is a rant, not an argument. Unless youre making a counterclaim for distress etc i wouldnt include. Its a distraction.

You could make it stronger, but you need to point out how there can
1) be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.
2) The landholder is the LANDLORD, not the MA who signed the contract,a dn the MA has no legitimate commercial interest at all
3) The claimants reason to patrol spaces is to erstrict... and by the claimants own admission, the defendant is such a person.
4) the amount is therefore, according to Beavis, a penalty and cannot be recovered.

5) Even if the court finds the claimant CAN impose an additional contract to provide the consideration the Defendant also has, I dispute that the signage as presented on site can ever impose an enforceable contract...

6) I do not follow how you have gone from 6.1, which talks about the right to introduce regulations - does the Lease include that? If NOT, tehn you need to state the landlords lease does NOT give this right, and the claimant KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS, as part of their diligence as they know the site had leaseholders.
You then go on ot state that the landlord has the exclusive right to park, and that was ceded to you for the duration fo the tenancy as shown in ... of the TA.

7) Is badly written
It sounds like there IS something in the lease around introducint new regulations; if so you MUST explain this more clearly as an argumetn
For example, you can point out that "good estate management" CANNOT alter existing parking arrangements, because the lease transfers rights to the parking bay to the landlord - that is the meaning of "exclusive"; so this vague term CANNOT imply the alteration of rights to park, as it would be a breach of the lease to do so.

pokerish

nosferatu1001 thank you so much you have helped me so so much

I hav a few queries below:

1. what do you mean by the bold bit:
2.2. There would be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.

2. In 4.2. they have quoted the wrong reference or quote from the lease, and have misquoted the quote to better suit their purpose.
The clause was
“the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Residential Section and the Residential Common Parts and which are for the general benefit of all or substantially all the occupiers of the Residential Section and which are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

They have said it is “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Car Park and are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

Is this worth picking up on?

Thanks again!!

Coupon-mad

pokerish wrote: »

In 4.2. they have quoted the wrong reference or quote from the lease, and have misquoted the quote to better suit their purpose.

The clause was
“the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Residential Section and the Residential Common Parts and which are for the general benefit of all or substantially all the occupiers of the Residential Section and which are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

They have said it is “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Car Park and are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

Is this worth picking up on?

OMG yes.

They are trying to mislead the Defendant and misdirect the Court, and you should argue that this is an abuse of process and wholly unreasonable conduct, especially given the WS comes from a cut & paste template provided by a firm of solicitors (Gladstones) who deal with parking robo-claims every day, and whose first duty is always to the court.

1. what do you mean by the bold bit:
2.2. There would be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.

The resident has 'exclusive use' of the parking space, under the lease, don't they?

So, the resident has an unfettered licence, an 'express right' to park there for months, as long as the car was taxed & roadworthy & not a dumped wreck that would breach the agreement.

pokerish

Hello,

Thank you so much coupon-mad

I am waiting at the court now, and believe the other party - parking and propert management - hasn’t showed up.

When I go in, do I just claim costs then?

Thanks

nosferatu1001

Has the claimant given notice they wont turn up?
iF not, raise that with the court and ask that, as a sanction, the claim shoudl be struck out - nicely! Theyve wasted YOUR time when they should have discontinued the claim instead, or at least had the couurtesy of informing the court