Residents parking - UKCPM - Claim Form

pogo88

Furthermore, I have now received the data from UKCPM from my SAR. It includes a photo which clearly shows the permit in the vehicle, but with the content partially obscured due to the windscreen border and due to the angle at which the photo was taken. I am sure I can replicate the positioning of the permit from their photo and take another from a different angle that will show the content of the permit was easily legible.

KeithP

pogo88 wrote: »

I am sure I can replicate the positioning of the permit from their photo and take another from a different angle that will show the content of the permit was easily legible.

You must do that and include it in your evidence.

pogo88

KeithP wrote: »

You must do that and include it in your evidence.

Thanks Keith...will do.

I'll add this to point 19 of my defence:

"19) The Defendant would also like to state, that as a matter of courtesy, the Defendant had registered his vehicle details to the allocated parking bay with the managing agent of the Residential Complex. This registration was completed prior to the dates of the alleged offences and a permit issued by the Claimant themselves was present on the dashboard of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offences.

19.1. The permit in question can be clearly seen from the Claimants own photographic evidence. However, the angle at which the photo is taken, deliberately ensuring the details on the permit is seen to be obscured on the photo. The Defendant wishes to submit (Evidence ref: xxxxx) which shows that the details of the permit are clearly legible when viewed from a different angle."

KeithP

No.

Nothing gets sent with the Defence.

Evidence comes later - together with your Witness Statement.

This is all explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

pogo88

Thanks Keith,

I thought that I needed to mention on my defence all of the specific points of fact that I would present at court? Or have I misunderstood and this level granular detail is not necessary on my defence and that these photos will just form part of the evidence pack (which I will submit at the WS stage) to back up my 'Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim' argument?

Thanks again
Pogo

bargepole

pogo88 wrote: »

Thanks Keith,

I thought that I needed to mention on my defence all of the specific points of fact that I would present at court? Or have I misunderstood and this level granular detail is not necessary on my defence and that these photos will just form part of the evidence pack (which I will submit at the WS stage) to back up my 'Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim' argument?

Your defence is far too long, wrongly headed 'Statement of Defence', contains unnecessary and confusing sub-paragraph numbers, and contains a load of irrelevant assertions you can't prove.

Here is the sort of thing you should be aiming for, which you can easily adapt to your particular case:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

[NAME OF PARKING COMPANY] (Claimant)

-and-

[NAME OF DEFENDANT] (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 [DATE]. 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 [DATE], held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point in [YEAR}, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the 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. The definitions, at para. 1.6, define an “Authorised Vehicle” as one which is taxed, roadworthy, and under 2 metres in height. At 1.54, the underground car park is defined. In Schedule 4, para.5, the Lessee agrees to only park a vehicle in an area set aside for that purpose. At para. 24, the Schedule to the Lease states that Lessees must not allow commercial vehicles, caravans, boats, trailers, etc. to be parked anywhere, and repeats the taxed and roadworthy requirements. 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, there are two different types of signs displayed at the location. The original signs, erected in 2014, refer to ‘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. The later signs, erected in 2015, state ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, which the Defendant’s vehicle clearly was, as per clause 1.6 of the lease. In any event, the proximity of signs setting out different terms is ambiguous, and falls foul of the contra proferentem rule.

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, 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.

Statement of Truth

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

………………………………………………………. (Defendant)
………………………(Date)

Loadsofchildren123

Re the right to introduce new Development Regulations, what is the definition of "Development" in your lease. Does it include the car park?

pogo88

Thanks Bargepole, I will adapt my defence to the framework you have suggested if this is better for my case.

Can I also include a point about the claimant pursuing a claim that I believe is "wholly unreasonable" (i.e. the majority of the final section of my initial draft defence)? I wanted to rely on this point when trying to claim my costs back from them. Or is this an example of the content I would include in any skeleton argument I may submit later in the process?

pogo88

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Re the right to introduce new Development Regulations, what is the definition of "Development" in your lease. Does it include the car park?

Hi Loadsofchildren,

Yes, in the definitions sections of my lease it states:

"Car Park" means the basement and ground floor car parks (subject to variation from time to time or
at any time throughout the Term in accordance with the provisions of this Lease) forming part of the
Development

Although it does also state that "Development regulations" must also be reasonable. I suppose what "reasonable" is can be quite subjective.

bargepole

pogo88 wrote: »

Can I also include a point about the claimant pursuing a claim that I believe is "wholly unreasonable" (i.e. the majority of the final section of my initial draft defence)? I wanted to rely on this point when trying to claim my costs back from them. Or is this an example of the content I would include in any skeleton argument I may submit later in the process?

Whether it is unreasonable to bring the claim in the first place, is something only the Judge can decide, when assessing costs after Judgment.

Unreasonable costs awards are rarely given in small claims cases, and it is a high bar to clear. Just because the claim fails, even if it is a hopeless case in the first place, does not guarantee that the Judge will make that finding.

Your points about PPC behaviour in general, Gladstones business practices, and debates in the Commons which have not yet passed into law, are all irrelevant to the substantive matter of whether you are liable to pay the Claimant, which is all the Judge will be deciding upon.