Court Claim form from UK Car park management & Gladstone

Coupon-mad

masatoi wrote: »

Yes it does say "14 days before" but 'counting days before/after' can be confusing. i.e. if you count the hearing date as 1 or not etc.

I know I should send WS early but I wanted to make it clear if 14 days before 15th March is 1st March.

Have you got the claims merged then? Just one hearing? If not, ask again like we advised before Xmas.

masatoi

Have you got the claims merged then? Just one hearing? If not, ask again like we advised before Xmas.

I haven't heard anything about the other claim. But actually if the claims are merged and the hearing date is still the same I won't be able to prepare for another WS as I'm moving to a new place this month it will be a busy month.

If they are not merged I will just do the first case first. And whenever the other one happens I will do it then.

masatoi

In the County Court at Croydon
Claim No. xxxxxx

Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
and
xxxx xxxx (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:


1. I am xxxx xxxxx, of [Address], [Postcode], I in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am a leaseholder of a residential property and a parking bay and attach evidence of leaseholder as Exhibit A & B.

3. On 02 March 2017, I was the driver of vehicle registration mark xxxxxxX, and the vehicle was parked at [Address] where I was a leasehold owner of a residential property and a parking bay.

4. Lease holders of a parking space are entitled to use the communal parking bays. Evidence of this is contained in the lease, dated 18Dec2006, and attached as Exhibit C P5 - 3.8.6.

5. I already have an unfettered right to park based on the lease.

6. I am a leaseholder and has never been afforded the opportunity to expressly agree or object to UKCPM's regime.

7. The signs only relate to 'unauthorised' vehicles which de facto does not include this case because I am a leaseholder owner with primacy of contract. Exhibit D

8. There has not been no new contract was formed. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration that overrides the lease between the landowner and myself.

9. I am not obliged to display a parking permit to park in the premises. For this point I reply on the case like PACE v Noor. The judge Coonan stated that

“I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a
tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it
does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that
right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict
that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got
to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy
agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is
displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot
unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.”.

and attached as Exhibit E.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

10, The claimant has no legal background to interfere with my enjoyment of the parking space. For this point I reply on the case like LINK PARKING LTD v JAYNE GAYNOR PARKINSON.
Deputy District Judge Metcalft stated that

“Moreover, I have real concerns as to whether this space, and the management of this
particular space, falls within their ambit as a management company. Their obligations
are laid out in the fourth schedule and it seems clear, from the fifth and sixth schedule
that their obligations related to the common parts of the property. This parking space
does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of
Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can
interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or
otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original
lease and I have not seen such a variation.”

and attached as Exhibit F.

11. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature


Date

Coupon-mad

I still think you should mention the other claim.

Why not add at the end that this predatory parking firm is harassing you with more than one claim, and in the event that you prevail, you ask that the Judge vacates any date set for the second claim xxxxxxx or, in the alternative, orders that the Claimant must discontinue it on the basis that the facts are duplicated ad the matter has already been decided by the court.

AND REMEMBER TO MENTION IT AGAIN AT THE HEARING, IF YOU WIN IN THE END, ASK THE JUDGE TO ORDER THE ABOVE. THEN ASK FOR YOUR COSTS OF COURSE!

Here I would add more:

6. I am a leaseholder and [STRIKE]has[/STRIKE] have never been afforded the opportunity to expressly agree or object to UKCPM's regime. For the avoidance of doubt, I would never have agreed to pay, or run the risk of paying a non-landholder and stranger to my lease, £100 per day for the parking allocation that I already enjoy as a resident. I rely upon my existing rights and easements, and my lease agreement to which the Claimant is a third party stranger.

And here, there is a typo as the first sentence makes no sense:

8. There has not been no new contract was formed. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration that overrides the lease between the landowner and myself.

I would also add in something about the Landlord & Tenant Act; here is one used earlier, based on words written by bargepole, I think, and he is legally qualified:

11. I did, at all material times, park in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding me in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, I deny having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

12. My vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the doctrine of 'primacy of contract' and I find that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with my land/property, or my use or enjoyment of that land/property.

13. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and I am unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

masatoi

In the County Court at Croydon
Claim No. XXXXX

Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXX XXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:


1. I am XXX XXXX, of [Address], [Postcode], I in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am a leaseholder of a residential property and a parking bay and attach evidence of leaseholder as Exhibit A & B.

3. On 02 March 2017, I was the driver of vehicle registration mark XXXXX, and the vehicle was parked at [Address] where I was a leasehold owner of a residential property and a parking bay.

4. Lease holders of a parking space are entitled to use the communal parking bays. Evidence of this is contained in the lease, dated 18Dec2006, and attached as Exhibit C P5 - 3.8.6.

5. I already have an unfettered right to park based on the lease.

6. I am a leaseholder and have never been afforded the opportunity to expressly agree or object to UKCPM's regime. For the avoidance of doubt, I would never have agreed to pay, or run the risk of paying a non-landholder and stranger to my lease, £100 per day for the parking allocation that I already enjoy as a resident. I rely upon my existing rights and easements, and my lease agreement to which the Claimant is a third party stranger.

7. The signs only relate to 'unauthorised' vehicles which de facto does not include this case because I am a leaseholder owner with primacy of contract. Exhibit D

8. I have never formed a contract with the claimant and the Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration that overrides the lease between the landowner and myself.

9. I am not obliged to display a parking permit to park in the premises. For this point I reply on the case like PACE v Noor. The judge Coonan stated that

“I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a
tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it
does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that
right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict
that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got
to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy
agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is
displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot
unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.”.

and attached as Exhibit E.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

10, The claimant has no legal background to interfere with my enjoyment of the parking space. For this point I reply on the case like LINK PARKING LTD v JAYNE GAYNOR PARKINSON.
Deputy District Judge Metcalft stated that

“Moreover, I have real concerns as to whether this space, and the management of this
particular space, falls within their ambit as a management company. Their obligations
are laid out in the fourth schedule and it seems clear, from the fifth and sixth schedule
that their obligations related to the common parts of the property. This parking space
does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of
Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can
interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or
otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original
lease and I have not seen such a variation.”

and attached as Exhibit F.


11. I did, at all material times, park in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding me in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, I deny having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

12. My vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the doctrine of 'primacy of contract' and I find that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with my land/property, or my use or enjoyment of that land/property.

13. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and I am unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

14. The claimant already has an ongoing case (claim no. XXXXXX - about the same location) that they filed against myself in November 2018. UK Car Park Management Limited is a predatory parking firm who is harassing me with more than one claim.

15. The claimant appears to be ignorant regarding the doctrine of res judicata, despite using a solicitor, Gladstones, which shared Directors with the parking Trade Body, the IPC, and files thousands of parking claims and is expected to conduct itself professionally with regard to its first duty to the Courts and due process.

16. I request the court to vacate the other claim If this case is decided by the court in my favour.

17. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature

Date

[Deleted User]

There's still a lot of argument on that and it's a little light on fact.

* If it is the case that your car was elsewhere for servicing or what have you, was it stuck to the windscreen (i.e. not easily transferred, even had you thought to move it).
* The purpose of evening management of the car park is to ensure residents (i.e. you) have access to park. You were a resident and you parked. There is not only no loss to the PPC, but there is no loss to anyone else, you were merely enjoying the use of the land to which your lease entitles you.
* The permit (assuming it is not referred to in the lease) is a device for the convenience of the parking company to identify residents. There are numerous other schemes that can be adopted - registers of registration numbers etc. It is not a scheme designed for or intended by the residents to penalise them
* If there is no scheme for temporary permits or temporary parking authority the scheme is insufficiently flexible for the practical realities of life. If effect the rigid enforcement of the permit scheme prevents the hiring or borrowing of cars. That cannot have been the intended consequence.

masatoi

Thank you Johnersh for the comment. much appreciated.

But I'd still need more specific advice on my latest WS whether or not it is good enough to be submited.

Many thanks.

tincombe

Since then I’ve been receiving letters from UK Car park management, Gladstone and debt collector. But I ignored all of them.

So it's hardly surprising that they've taken the action they have: you made no attempt to tell them your side of the story and are now burdening the court system.

So, marching out of time....

Next time you think you have an argument, then make it earlier. All the big guns of this judgment and that judgment when all you needed to do was tell the company in the first instance..hello, it's me, tenant of no.**, car was in for repair but left permit in it. Sorry.

Most of the posts relate to arguments made in court even when the driver's side has been put to the PPC which then decides to act as a bully. But this is not the case here.

If I were the judge I would not be well disposed towards you.

You might want to bear this in mind.

LoneStarState

tincombe wrote: »

So it's hardly surprising that they've taken the action they have: you made no attempt to tell them your side of the story and are now burdening the court system.

So, marching out of time....

Next time you think you have an argument, then make it earlier. All the big guns of this judgment and that judgment when all you needed to do was tell the company in the first instance..hello, it's me, tenant of no.**, car was in for repair but left permit in it. Sorry.

Most of the posts relate to arguments made in court even when the driver's side has been put to the PPC which then decides to act as a bully. But this is not the case here.

Is this a serious post? Why on earth would the OP attempt to reason with an out and out scam?

Surely by your logic the PPC should have contacted all residents and offered a flexible enforcement system that included options such as whitelisting of VRNs (this would have potentially solved the above issue while the OP leased) and caution letters for genuine mistakes such as this as opposed to an inelastic permit system that is intended to do nothing more than trap innocent motorists as it has done here.

Your post also ignores the rent a solicitor/bulk robo claim model that these organisations use that will disregard any human appeal to sense in such cases. If anything, the "honest mistake, sorry guv, please cancel" approach merely highlights you as someone pliable to ultimately paying up. You have to fight fire with fire when it comes to these parasites until proper legislation sees that the industry is actually held to account.

Also interesting to note the delicate point in time you decide to make such a comment. The OP is obviously a little unsure of the process and asking for regular advice from regular forum users. Then you are trying to throw a spanner in the works and knock their confidence at a crucial point in time for them and their case.

You'll draw a lot of attention to yourself and your intentions on this forum with such poorly timed and unconstructive posts in my opinion.

Coupon-mad

tincombe wrote: »

Since then I’ve been receiving letters from UK Car park management, Gladstone and debt collector. But I ignored all of them.

So it's hardly surprising that they've taken the action they have: you made no attempt to tell them your side of the story and are now burdening the court system.

So, marching out of time....

Next time you think you have an argument, then make it earlier. All the big guns of this judgment and that judgment when all you needed to do was tell the company in the first instance..hello, it's me, tenant of no.**, car was in for repair but left permit in it. Sorry.

Most of the posts relate to arguments made in court even when the driver's side has been put to the PPC which then decides to act as a bully. But this is not the case here.

If I were the judge I would not be well disposed towards you.

You might want to bear this in mind.

You've replied as if you don't realise that all parking charges are scam and people are perfectly at liberty to ignore the trash. Of course they can. No blame to the OP.

Especially with the likes of ex-clampers UKCPM, who offer NO APPEAL WORTH TRYING.

You seem to think they'd have listened! No. This would have been completely pointless:

all you needed to do was tell the company in the first instance..hello, it's me, tenant of no.**, car was in for repair but left permit in it.

Absolutely no chance this would have been cancelled, zero, zilch.

Utter scammery.

This is not a normal situation where the Claimant is the 'innocent party'!