Parking fines by UKPC

nosferatu1001

It says to display a permit, but it does not state
1) That they are bound to a contract with a third party in order to park
2) That this third party can levy a charge when a petty rule isnt followed.

Money...MATTERS

Fruitcake wrote: »

From a court case mentioned on the Parking Prankster's blog site.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=sticky

The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.

The same would apply to a permit. If it falls off then a frustration of contract has occurred.

Are you able to provide the details of the court hearing that occurred Link Parking v ??? I would like to delve into this a bit more or refer to it in the defence. Thanks.

cgh01

The link you are asking for has been provided in post you have quoted in #13 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=sticky

Money...MATTERS

cgh01 wrote: »

The link you are asking for has been provided in post you have quoted in #13 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=sticky

Thanks but I'm trying to find out who Mr H was so that I can try and source a transcript or more information on the case.

Coupon-mad

There is no transcript we know of for that case.

You can still refer to it in defence, and later on at WS and evidence stage, you can include the PP's blog.

Money...MATTERS

In the County Court

Claim No

BETWEEN:

UK Parking Control Ltd(Claimant)

and

(Defendant)

Defence

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

2. The Defendant is an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant and moved into the property at ADDRESS in DATE, and at some point after that, a parking firm was imposed on the residents, which everyone naively believed were there to stop trespassers, not look for reasons to penalise genuine residents with no way for the Managing Agents to cancel these penalties.

3. The Defendant's tenancy has primacy of contract over any restrictions the Claimant places on the land.

4. There are no terms within the Defendant’s tenancy conditions requiring residents to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display parking permits and there is a large body of case law which establishes this.

5. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
The parking area is for the use of residents and the parking regime is supposed to act as a deterrent to non-residents from exploiting the parking facilities, it was never intended to be a penalty for genuine residents that were previously able to park for free.

6. 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.

7. Even if the Defendant was displaying a permit, they were only doing so as a courtesy as the Managing Agents had issued them one day and asked everyone to do so, and at no point was anyone warned that these 'permits' in fact masked an onerous obligation which could give rise to a penalty. At no point did residents realise they were having a contract foisted upon them. At no point did the Managing Agents remove the easements and rights of way already granted, and at no point did the Managing Agents seek authority to alter the tenancy agreement to impose a parking regime and remove the unfettered parking rights and easements that had already passed to the Defendant as a Assured Tenant.

7.1 Additionally the Claimant cannot definitively assert that a valid permit was not clearly on display. The permits provided by the Claimant are not fit for purpose as there is no means to securely affix the small 3” by 2” permit anywhere in a vehicle and it is prone to move and/or fall through no fault of the drivers.

8. The signs refer to 'No unauthorised Vehicles”, 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.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the tenancy agreement 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.

9 The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents. Accordingly it is denied that:

9.1 there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.

9.2 the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

9.3 It is further denied that the signage is clearly displayed. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

6. 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.

7. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to each 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.

8. 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 alleged contractual parking charges of £xxx - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £xxx.xx, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

9. 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.

10. 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.


………………………………………………………. (Defendant)

……………………… (Date)

Coupon-mad

I would remove 9.2. as there is no case to argue about 'no loss' since Beavis. Much more important is 'no legitimate interest' which you have in that defence.

I could not see anything putting the Claimant to proof that they have landowner authority to issue PCNs and offer contracts, and sue residents without intervention or authority from the landowner. Standard point that a few people have managed to remove from the templates recently, not sure why. It's vital.

as a Assured Tenant.

should be

as an Assured Shorthold Tenant.

Money...MATTERS

Good afternoon, my colleague has a court date set for 02/5/2019. She received a request from the solicitors to provide a copy of her tenancy agreement - she's not obliged to do so at this stage is she?

Coupon-mad

She should disclose info when asked. It can be argued as unreasonable conduct if she doesn't.

And anyway, she should be preparing her WS and evidence to file & serve by the deadline shown in that letter, an it will include her tenancy agreement excerpts, surely, to show either that she has a stated right to park, or that the agreement is silent about any obligation to display a permit (I hope?).

Her WS & evidence stage must be now, or in April. Read the letter, if she's missed that.

Money...MATTERS

Thanks Coupon-mad, I'll let her know that she should submit it to them. I don't have a copy of the letter but she advised that the WS is required 2 weeks before the court date. The only details that were mentioned about parking were in post #17:

You must not park anywhere except in a garage, on a parking space or hardstanding, or on a drive.

You must not park without a valid parking permit, or allow your visitors to park without a permit if there is a parking scheme where you live.

Tenants were provided a permit 3"by 2" with no means of securing it. My colleague advises that the permit was always on display except when it would drop through the dashboard which is no fault of her own.