County Court Claim For for Parking ticket, advice

FlyGuyRM

Thanks for the feedback.


The date on the claim form is 13th August 2018.


I haven't got the original notice put on my car, however the particulars of the claim form merely state 'the driver of vehicle XXXX incurred the parking charges on XXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXX'. No details of the the terms.


I was not parked in a bay, I believe I parked on an unmarked side road within the residential estate, there were no signs around that area.


Having been back to the location recently, it does state that you should be parked in a bay with a valid permit on the signage, however again these signs are not located where I parked and in order to read them you would have to walk up directly to the signs which are up 7ft plus in the air. Nor are they at the entrance of the estate.


There are no stiplulations about helping anyone of any perticular nature i.e. minors or disabled persons or any excemptions.


Would you reccomend I then remove the defence that somone who is a lease holder or tenant could rely upon?

KeithP

unknown wrote: »

The date on the claim form is 13th August 2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th August, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th September 2018 to file your Defence.

A few more days than you thought, but please don't leave it until the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Coupon-mad

There are no stipulations about helping anyone of any particular nature i.e. minors or disabled persons or any exemptions.

Would you recommend I then remove the defence that someone who is a lease holder or tenant could rely upon?

No.

Change your first point to say:

1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, had briefly stopped [STRIKE]was parked[/STRIKE] on the material date in an unmarked area of the residential estate and had express permission from the tenant of XXXXXX to [STRIKE]park[/STRIKE] drop off and help to unload the tenant's belongings and child. At that location, it was common courtesy and practice among residents to opt not obstruct any bay, when merely collecting or dropping off a passenger for a matter of minutes.

1.1. The vehicle was not 'parked' on the material date, it was temporarily stopped for a matter of minutes, whilst the Defendant escorted a young child to a private residential property. This is a new build residential estate, and the car stopped properly beside an unmarked kerb - not in a parking permit only space - whilst helping a resident friend and his young children with bags to his fourth floor apartment, late in the evening.

1.2. The driver was aware, as a circumspect and experienced driver, that the act of 'escorted boarding or alighting' is expressly allowed (even on yellow lines) and is not a contravention on public highway.

1.3. In the absence of any signs to the contrary that addressed loading/unloading, boarding or alighting - normal activity in any black of flats - there was no reason to assume that different rules than the accepted norm, applied here for exempt activity.

1.4. The Defendant avers that residents and their visitors/delivery drivers etc., can rely upon an easement and/or rights of way, which allow for passing and re-passing, including stopping. This every-day activity must have been in the contemplation of the Developer/freeholders, at the time of the Development being built, and to try to remove or charge for an implied right (granted to the residents by the servient tenement) would be a derogation from grant.

1.5. The Defendant relies upon persuasive higher court/appeal cases, including Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and the findings of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.

1.5.1. In the case of Moncrieff, Lord Neuberger defined parking as longer term/leaving of a vehicle for a period of time, and this definition was echoed more recently at a County Court Appeal case, regarding a very similar unfair/predatory parking charge, where HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) held that life at a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if people were penalised for brief stopping to unload close to a block of flats.

And I don't think the paras below that, logically follow as, etc. I think you then should start after that with number 2 because the subject matter changes a bit.

HTH

FlyGuyRM

Thanks, I will make sure not to leave my defence until the last minute. Not my style, haven't got the nerves for that.


Thanks for amending my paras, you didn't have to so really appreciate it. I have intergrated them into my latest defence draft and changed the numbering as suggested. Based on the draft above would any other inlcusions, changes or ommissions be recommended as I would like to start to finalise this defence.

Quentin

If you have inadvertently used your real name as your forum name you need to ask MSE to change it to something truly anonymous


The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you

Coupon-mad

Can you show us how the defence looks now, the final draft?

FlyGuyRM

Thanks for the advice Keith & Quentin. Username has been changed.


Please see below for the final draft... I hope.


I have kept in para 10. As the old age saying goes 'don't shoot you don't score' despite minimal chances of the court agreeing to striking out the Claim.


Not sure whether para 5 remains applicable in my case?










I (Defendant) assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.





1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, had briefly stopped was parked on the material date in an unmarked area of the residential estate and had express permission from the tenant of XXXXXX to park drop off and help to unload the tenant's belongings, and escort the child in that location, where it was common practice among residents to opt not obstruct any bay, where merely collecting or dropping off a passenger.

FlyGuyRM

Apologies didn't paste previous draft properly






I (Defendant) assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.





1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, had briefly stopped was parked on the material date in an unmarked area of the residential estate and had express permission from the tenant of XXXXXX to park drop off and help to unload the tenant's belongings, and escort the child in that location, where it was common practice among residents to opt not obstruct any bay, where merely collecting or dropping off a passenger.





1.1. The vehicle was not 'parked' on the material date, it was temporarily stopped for a matter of minutes, whilst the Defendant escorted a young child to a private residential property. This is a new build residential estate, and the car stopped properly beside an unmarked kerb - not in a parking permit only space - whilst helping a resident friend and her young children with bags to her fourth floor apartment.





1.2. The driver was aware that the act of 'escorted boarding or alighting' is expressly allowed (even on yellow lines) and is not a contravention on public highway.





1.3. In the absence of any signs to the contrary that addressed loading/unloading, boarding or alighting - normal activity in any block of flats - there was no reason to assume that different rules than the accepted norm, applied here for exempt activity.





1.4. The Defendant avers that residents and their visitors/delivery drivers etc., can rely upon an easement and/or rights of way, which allow for passing and re-passing, including stopping. This every day activity must have been in the contemplation of the Developer/freeholders, at the time of the Development being built, and to try to remove or charge for that implied right would be a derogation from grant.





1.5. The Defendant relies upon persuasive higher court/appeal cases, including Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, Kettel v Bloomfold [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) and the findings of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.





1.5.1. In the case of Moncrieff, Lord Neuberger defined parking as longer term/leaving of a vehicle for a period of time, and this definition was echoed more recently at a County Court Appeal case, regarding a very similar unfair/predatory parking charge, where HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) held that life at a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if people were penalised for brief stopping to unload close to a block of flats.





2. Further, the terms of the Claimants signage are also too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position away from unmarked locations, approximately over seven feet high that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand directly in front of the sign to have any chance of reading it. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.





3. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents or visitors at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.





4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by litigation.





5. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:


(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or


(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or


(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.





6. Accordingly it is denied that:


6.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant 6.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and 6.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.


In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished;





7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.





7.1 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.





8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that a maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case GBP 100. The claim includes an additional GBP 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.





9. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents and law abiding motorist, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes or as guests with no alternative parking means is not something the Courts should be seen to support.





10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.





I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.








Signed





Date

snobber

Sorry but I have extensively read NEWBIES and all associated threads and have followed their advice to the letter.

Indigo have come straight back at me with a lot of legal speak telling me 'info is wrong'. Here's what they wrote (now what do I do) :
Thank you for your email.

Please be advised that the internet template you have pasted as your appeal refers to Parking Charge Notices and so does not apply as you have been issued a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaw 14.

All photographic evidence is available for you to view with your Penalty Notice number and vehicle registration.

We refer your comments regarding the processing of your data, which we are treating as a formal section 10 Notice (“the Notice”) under the Data Protection Act (“the Act”). Please accept this email as our formal acknowledgement and response to the Notice.

You have provided no justification for the Notice. The processing of your data is warranted.

In any event, section 10(1) of the Act does not apply in circumstances where Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Act are met, accordingly, we are permitted to continue to process your data at this stage.

I am sorry to take up your time but I don't know how to couteract their legal speak that this is a PENALTY notice and not a PARKING notice (driver paid the fee online just couldnt register the car). Thank you

Coupon-mad

snobber please hit 'edit' and delete your post; this is not your thread.

Looks like you had several tabs open and posted in the wrong one.

You say you have read the NEWBIES thread but Indigo/railway cases are fully covered in the Q&A there near the top so there is no need for ANY Indigo/railway thread. If you honestly still need advice, even after reading the NEWBIES link about Indigo railway cases (which ARE called 'penalties' but it means nothing) start your own new thread.

Please delete your post - it's unfair on FlyGuyRM, whose case is about UKCPM.