Court Claim form from UK Car park management & Gladstone

tincombe

Which approach has got the owner absolutely nowhere.

So what if they presented their side and the PPC unreasonably rejected their 'appeal'. All the better to present your case in court..look how reasonable I've been..I told them my side and they unreasonably rejected it.

AND because this is exactly the same story being put to the court - minus the presumed unreasonable behaviour of the PPC of course, something of a debit against the owner so hardly to be recommended- then NOTHING has been gained by burying one's head in the sand.

I say again, it is foolish to not engage with the process in the initial stage if one thinks one holds a strong hand and intends to present the same points in court.

Coupon-mad

I don't disagree with you - but no dissing a person who has ignored one.

At least half the people who we help with defences, have ignored their PCN, and we still see 99% wins!

masatoi

Hello

Just wanted to ask for a final check on my WS. I'm pretty sure this is close to finish.

Thank you



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.

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

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

masatoi

--- Urgent help please ---

I received a letter from the local court saying the other case is now merged to the first case and I need to submit a WS 14 days before hearing which is today.

Im going to start writing a WS but the letter says "if a copy of documents are not sent to the other party the judge may refuse or not take it into account".

I haven't received anything whatsoever from UKCPM nor Gladstone.

And then I realised I sent my Defence and WS to Gladstone but not to UKCPM. Would this be a problem?


Lastly I post my defence for the 2nd case here.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge incurred on 24/02/2016. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as '[LOCATION]'. The Defendant has, since [04/07/2014], held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.
{The definitions, at para. 4.8.6, define Not at any time use or permit it to be used or occupied except as a parking space for the parking of one motor car in the ownership or control of the Tenant.
In the First schedule at para. 4.4.1 Not to underlet or part with possession or occupation of the Space or allow the Space to be occupied by any Car or other motor vehicle except as authorised by this Licence and not to assign the benefit of this Licence to any party other than a tenant of the Flat.}

4.1. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

5. The Defendant, at all material times, parked 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 the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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 the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

7. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

7.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

7.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

8. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

9. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

9a. The Claimant has described the £60 as 'losses' which is patently untrue (impossible, given that the £100 is mostly profit) and in fact, damages/loss cannot be successfully pleaded in a parking ticket case where the Claimant is not in possession of the land, as was confirmed in the Beavis case.

10. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £267.43, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

11. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

11.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

12. This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

13. Taking into account the above points the Defendant will be seeking their costs on the indemnity basis due to the above conduct which was the final insult after the wholly unreasonable and vexatious stance of a parking firm who:

a. Already has an ongoing case (claim no. xxxxxxxx - about the same location) that they filed against this Defendant in June 2018. The defendant requests the court to merge the 2 claims.

b. Appear 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.

c. Is clearly engaging in a vexatious pursuit of this Defendant, when they already know about the easements and rights enjoyed by residents at the material location, who indisputably have primacy of contract.



I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

14 days before hearing which is today.

Can't be. Your hearing can't be on a Saturday!

then I realised I sent my Defence and WS to Gladstone but not to UKCPM. Would this be a problem?

No, that was the correct thing to do.

Where a Claimant is using a solicitor, you serve things to that solicitor, not to UKCPM.

masatoi

Thank you Coupon-mad as always. Much appreciated.

The hearing is 15March. So the 14 days before was actually the Friday 01March.

The letter was dated 28Feb and was in my post yesterday Saturday.

The court shouldn't be expecting to receive a WS on time...

masatoi

In the County Court at Croydon
Claim No. XXXXXXXXX

Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXX XXXXXX (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], 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,C & D.

3. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge incurred on XX FEB2016. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5 as Exhibit F & G.

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 G P5 - 3.8.6.

5. I already have an unfettered right to park based on the lease and there are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

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. 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. 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 H.


10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

Le_Kirk

12. 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 (with no more than 10% disagreeing), pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and I am unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

Might want to add that for a bit more weight. Also "I am unaware" seems a bit woolly, can you be a bit more forceful in saying that there has never been such a vote? You are a leaseholder and would know if you had been approached and or consulted. Can you ask some of the other leaseholders?

masatoi

thanks Le_Kirk
I always read the meeting reports from management company so I'm certain that the terms of lease haven't changed.
I will add that line.