Claim issued over residential parking

KeithP

malihat wrote: »

Do I have to include the whole lease or is it ok to just include the relevant pages?

Just the relevant pages, but take the whole thing with you to the hearing.

malihat

Bumping for some feedback on the WS before I print it and send it off

beamerguy

malihat wrote: »

Bumping for some feedback on the WS before I print it and send it off

OK send it

malihat

The hearing date is 30th September. I was going to drop off my WS and evidence bundle today but received the bundle from SCS law and want to edit my WS to respond.

A few points from their witness statement:
1. They have attached a contract with the MA and say that the MA's contract with the landowner grants them the right to enter into a contract with UKPC. There is no contract provided between the MA and landowner though. Can I say in my WS that no chain of contracts has been demonstrated?

2. They have said their contracts commenced in 2014 (before we moved in), and have attached said contracts but I have a letter from the MA from 2015 AFTER we moved in telling us about the scheme. I have said in my defence and WS that UKPC arrived after us so should I attach the letter from the MA showing this?

3. Most of the tickets are for not displaying a valid permit but there are also a couple for not parking in a marked bay. There are very few marked bays on the property so residents also park on an access roadway. You only get ticketed if you park on a yellow line there (which I admit we did do). Their WS says we caused an obstruction, which isn't true. Do I respond to this?

4. The first 2 PCNs we got were in late 2015 and my husband did appeal them, they have attached letters where they asked for a photo of the permit but we can't recall receiving these. In fact there is another correspondence to them from my husband saying that they haven't responded to his appeals dated just before their letters asking for a permit and then saying that the appeals are rejected since we didn't respond. Like I said, we can't recall receiving the letters asking for a photo of the permit. Will it go against us that we didn't supply a photo?

5. I have just located an appeal that we successfully won in early 2016. They have not included anything relating to this ticket in their bundle, nor was their anything relating to this in the SAR. https://imgur.com/a/dDTh5ZE I believe they asked for a copy of the permit which we supplied. Can I argue that at this point they knew we held a valid permit so any tickets after this point should not have been issued? (we only had 2 tickets before this point)

6. In response to our defence they have said that we haven't supplied them with a lease even though they asked. Can I say that they could have bought this from the land registry and that they should have done their due diligence before they started operating by studying the Head Lease to ensure that they had the legal right to carry out the activities they were planning. They have also stated the following: https://imgur.com/a/lGu1rC6
I will respond that this does not allow the MA to reduce the granted rights, by requiring contracting with a third party in order to park, and does not allow them to bind you to paying a third party to park at your residence. Any regulations must be reasonable, and they cannot reduce the rights you have in your lease - as that would require a new lease to be drawn up.

7. They've included a letter sent to residents in a different part of the estate regarding some changes in their permits. This letter also states that if you receive a ticket for parking legally on that part of the estate you should contact the MA immediately. We obviously did not receive this as we do not live on that part of the estate. We only have a letter dated October 2015 telling us that we had to start displaying permits from 5/11/2015 with no mention of contacting the MA to cancel tickets.

8. They say the landowner authorised the introduction of parking regulations but provide no proof. They also argue the following: https://imgur.com/a/pjFAtp1

9. They have also raised the following points:
https://imgur.com/a/zyLXcT6

10. They say the Beavis case is not only applicable to commercial premises, and legitimate interest can take non commercial forms as well. They say there is a legitimate interest in the management of parking to ensure non-residents don't take the parking spaces of residents and permits make this distinction. What can I say here?

11. With regards to abuse of process they say that the NTK says that if the charge remains unpaid and is referred for debt recovery they can add a charge of £60. They said this doesn't contravene POFa 4(5) since they have put this in the NTK.

12. They have included the photos they took when they issued the tickets which I had already seen due to the SAR. The quality of the photos is extremely poor and you can barely make anything out in them.

In addition they have sent a statement of costs. I wasn't aware they could do this. If they win will I have to pay this additional amount as well? https://imgur.com/a/xEWAeFD

beamerguy

Are SCLaw on some sort of opioid ???

TOTALLY ROUND THE BEND ?

The Beavis case has no bearing on you. Only idiots nowadays use this and they should read up about that case before they make themselves look so stupid.

With regards to abuse of process they say that the NTK says that if the charge remains unpaid and is referred for debt recovery they can add a charge of £60.

As the NTK came after the reading of the signage, the NTK is not a contract, just an invoice to obtain money. There can be no contract giving you a NTK after the event which was never agreed to.

So, they have contravened POFa 4(5) and that part of their claim is ABUSE PROCESS

As far as their claim ..... https://imgur.com/a/xEWAeFD
TOTAL MADNESS if they think a judge would fall for this rubbish. That alone is ABUSING THE COURT and a scam attempt of double recovery

I would say that as this is residential parking and as SCSLaw is clearly trying to scam you, a judge will give them a good spanking and allow your costs

We get to see so much rubbish on here from the dodgy legals but this SCSLaw one really takes the biscuit

malihat

This is the response I have drafted:

1. In paragraph 2, the Claimant states that the managing agents’ contracts with the landowner grants them the right to enter into a contract with the Claimant. However, no such contract is provided and the Defendant rejects that a chain of contracts has been demonstrated.

2. In paragraph 14, the Claimant states that they have not seen a copy of the Defendant’s lease. The Defendant states that the Claimant could have bought this from the land registry and that they should have done their due diligence before they started operating at the location by studying the Head Lease to ensure that they had the legal right to carry out the activities they were planning.
The Claimant also states that the lease will show that the Defendant must comply with regulations introduced by the landowner and/or managing agents in the interest of good estate management. However, any regulations have to be consistent with the terms of the lease. They do not allow the management agent to reduce the granted rights, by requiring contracting with a third party in order to park, and does not allow them to bind you to paying a third party to park at your residence. Any regulations must be reasonable, and they cannot reduce the rights you have in your lease as that would require a new lease to be drawn up.

3. In paragraph 15 the Claimant refers to a letter sent to the residents at Woodpecker Mount and has included this letter at Exhibit AY/8. The Defendant lives on a different park of the estate (Bellfield) and did not receive this letter.

4. In paragraph 16 the Claimant states that the introduction of parking regulations was authorised by the landowner but provides no proof of this.

5. In March 2016, the Defendant successfully appealed a Parking Charge. This means that after this point the Claimant was aware that the Defendant had a right to park at the premises but continued to issue further charges.
APPEAL APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E9

nosferatu1001

You dont use a resposne as such, I would do a lot of it in the flow of your WS> SO youc na state that at no point was an obstruction caused, and state how you know this and put them to strict proof an obstruction was caused in the hearing - they wont be able to do so. They wont have any actual evidence, and their witness likely wont be there to be cross examined.

To answer your questions:

1) Yes ther is nothing shownig the landholder or owner gave authority; a MA is by definition NOT the landholder, and the Cs ATA REQUIRES landholder authority.

2) So their contract is dated 2014? You have not confirmed this. YES of course you include your letter (again, inline in your ws, showing when you were notfied of the scheme) and state you are unsure why the MA who has no reason to misrepresent facts is claiming something different to the claimants assertion.

3) already dealt with

4) No, because you state IN YOUR WS that no response to your appeals was ever received.

5) Yes, you state they knew there was a permit in palce, that you were athorised and so they should have used a whitelist. There is no COMMERCIAL justification for ticketing you post this point, as it doesnt help the purpose to which they were employed.

This means the charges are a penalty,a nd BEAVIS supports you in saying they are such, and therefore they CANNOT be recovered.

6) Why didnt you send a copy? Parties are expected to cooperate

Indeed you do point out that they knew or SHOULD HAVE known you would have residents tehre with occupier rights, and that they cannot have performed reasonable diligence before entering the contract. Thats their issue,and not yours.

If you hold a long lease this will be on LR

7) Then state you are unsure why this oetter was included, as it has nothing to do with your part of the estate.

8) Theyre jsut trying to make it seem like their scheme is fair. It isnt. You had no requirement to display
You point out they do not have proof of this authority. none.

9) Pretty sure thats not what the actual judgement says - pretty sure that was they dont have to have the ability to contract to offer, or somethign along those liness. But yuor point remains that they had nothing to OFFER you did not already have, and so you had no reasno to enter a contract - no consideration can flow. None. That also covers their next para - they claim theyre the only ones who can offer permission to park, yet you have a documetn stating otherwise.

10) Easy. Youre not a non-resident. They knew this. They also know, or should have known, that you have occupier rights that are superior to theirs, so they NEVER acquired any rights to charge you anything.

Also - Beavis stated that they must adhere to their COP...

11) which they are now stating they contravened by putting the amount of the charge as £160. The £60 is not the amount the driver owed, whcih si teh amount on the NTK, which means they do contravene POFA - not that they meet it anyway - and so this is still an abuse.

COSTS:
OF COURSE THEY CAN SEND YOU THIS! Doesnt mean its payable however! Same as YOU send them YOUR costs, and as you can show unreasonable behaviour - ticketing a KNOWN RESIDENT with KNOWN rights to park when they have no authoeity to issue any tickets at all - you havea hope in hell of getting yours.
You could state you are unsure why the C has included a costs order, as CPR27.14(2)(g) makes it very clear their costs are not recoverable.

malihat

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

2) So their contract is dated 2014? You have not confirmed this. YES of course you include your letter (again, inline in your ws, showing when you were notfied of the scheme) and state you are unsure why the MA who has no reason to misrepresent facts is claiming something different to the claimants assertion.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is. It also states that they would start supplying services from March 2014, but the first we heard about it was in October 2015. I will include the letter from the MA as evidence.

nosferatu1001

Just point out that this discrepancy is odd, as why would they wait 18 months?
When does the MA say it started from?

malihat

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Just point out that this discrepancy is odd, as why would they wait 18 months?
When does the MA say it started from?

The MA hasn't said anything regarding the start date of the contract. They've only said that the permits come into force in November 2015.