Own Apartment Parking Fine

Nell22

Had my day in court - outcome unconclusive.

Didn’t have the friendliest judge.

He ripped the claimant for about 15 mins saying he was not sure what they were claiming - after that the claimant said not showing correct permit. The judge then said that’s not what is written in the claim so they have 14 days to resubmit then me as the defendant have 14 days to resubmit evidence. Disappointing. They will combine all three of my cases.

DoaM

When you win ( ) be sure to press for exceptional costs due to unreasonable conduct.

nosferatu1001

Yikes, hes giving them a second go at their claim?
You should havea wasted costs order against themfor todays hearing.

Nell22

Luckily through the magic of internet, myself and fellow tenant within my development found each other through this post to help people. He had his court case last week and won on the same type of proceedings. I’ll include his hearing in my new evidence if needed as precedence.

It is disappointing day - the judge didn’t even ask me anything in the hearing. It was scheduled for 12 got seen at 3.30pm. I’ll have to research what exceptional costs I can apply to the case if I do win.

Coupon-mad

Simply read the costs schedule example in the newbies thread.

nosferatu1001

Add on your wasted costs for the day wasted bythe other side
Thats ordinary costs
This shoudl have been sorted out by the claimant making a proper claim.

Hate_Gladstone

Hi,

I received a pcn whilst parking in the residential car park unfortunately my permit was not visible that day. I'm at the lbc stage from Gladstone's I've been given a report with photos regarding why I received the pcn. Im currently renting and there are no allocated spaces but I do access the carpark with a fob;. Is the defense you one that I can used?

Appreciate any advice this hanging over my head makes me anxious

Hate_Gladstone

Hi,

I received a pcn whilst parking in the residential car park unfortunately my permit was not visible that day. I'm at the lbc stage from Gladstone's I've been given a report with photos regarding why I received the pcn. Im currently renting and there are no allocated spaces but I do access the carpark with a fob;. Is the defense you one that I can used?

Appreciate any advice this hanging over my head makes me anxious

Coupon-mad

Please reply on your own thread (below). You were a bit unlucky in that you got no replies as we were busy but you should have hollered again!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75556175#Comment_75556175

Please reply there, we will reply.

peacefulturbo

Hi good people,

I live in a block of flats with parking being managed by PCM. I have permit and have always displayed the ticket at all times. Last year, I took my vehicle in for servicing and was issued a courtesy car. I transferred the permit to the courtesy car but when I picked my car after service, I forgot to transfer the parking permit back to my vehicle. I noticed the next day my error as PCM issued a PCN on my windscreen. Since the land is a private property, I ignored it. a few days later, I received another PCN. Following this, PCM has written countless letters demanding payment of the fine(s) which I dully ignored.

Yesterday, I received a court summons about the PCM claims and I need to prepare a defense. I have read a number of threads and I will acknowledge their letter shortly. I think I have 14 days to do so.

In preparing my defence after I acknowledge the summons, I need help from good people like yourselves. I have literally copy and tweak the following defence and I will need some reviews from readers or contributors please. My defence is as follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: F4XXXXXX
Between

[PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED]
(Claimant)

-and-


[MR.X. XXXXX]
(Defendant)

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(s)' incurred on [24/01/2018, 27/01/2018 and 27/01/2018]. 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 as the driver/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. The Particulars alleges that the ‘driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN’s within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so.’ No such agreement was exists between the defendant and claimant either expressed, implied, or by conduct.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as 'MY HOUSE LOCATION'. The Defendant’s family has, since 14th January 2011, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. 9, XXXXX House at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The under croft car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents only. Entry to the gated underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles. Under the Defendant’s Lease ‘Particulars’; it defines “Allocated Parking Space” to the defendant – “means the parking space numbered 153 as allocated to the leaseholder by the Landlord within the Parking Spaces or such other parking space as the Landlord may allocate in writing from time to time if becomes reasonably necessary to do so.” In Schedule 3 – Easements, Rights and Privileges, para.7, “If the Leaseholder has an allocated Parking Space (as evidenced in the Particulars) the right to park a private motor vehicle not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight in the Allocated Parking Space. In Schedule 11 – Defined Terms; it states “Parking Spaces means the car parking spaces numbered 149 – 165 as shown tinted pink on Plan B situated within the Under croft Parking Facility and the surface parking space numbered 8 as shown tinted pink on Plan 3”

5.1. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to ‘Parking for Permit Holders Only', and suggest that by parking without permission or ‘a permit’, 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.

8.1. 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.

8.2. 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.

9. 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.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge per each Parking Charge Notice (PCN), 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.

11. 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 £663.71, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

12. 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.

12.1. 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 cease wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

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

Your input to my defence will much appreciated