UK CPM Ltd / Gladstone Solicitors - LBC Received

m0nar0

Good evening all,

Firstly, thank you for maintaining a fantastic community fighting the injustices of PPC's, your guidance and advice is appreciated enormously.

To give some context to my particular case:

1. In early 2018, I received a PCN whilst parked in a parking space owned by myself under the terms of the leasehold for my apartment. The PCN was issued due to not having a valid Permit displayed
2. Following the procedure listed in the NEWBIES thread, I unsuccessfully appealed to have the PCN cancelled with UK CPM Ltd, the IAS, and the Property Management Company.
3. I have since received many threatening letters from UK CPM Ltd, Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) and now Gladstone Solicitors.... including a false Gladstone headed letter from DRP.
4. I have now received a Letter Before Claim (identical to hxxps://ibb.co/bZWMm5 bar the specific details), and in response (as per Newbies thread post #2), I have responded to the LBC to Gladstones within the 14 days (although the actual LBC claims I have 30 days??), I have also submitted a SAR to UK CPM Ltd and finally have approached the landowner (freeholder) to urge them to take action to cancel the PCN. All of these were submitted via email, I trust this is sufficient.

I now await the responses. In the meantime, I will begin building my defence.... the fight is on!

Once again, thanks for all the encouragement, advice and guidance.

The_Deep

If this is part of your demised property, read this

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

If not this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927351/court-report-guildford-another-ukcpm-claim-bites-the-dust&highlight=

There are plenty more such residential parking losses.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

m0nar0

Thank you for your quick reply!

If this is part of your demised property, read this

This is where things become a little confused...

Some time before the PCN was issued, the Landlord decided to move my parking space to another area on the property and subsequently painted a new bay and my flat number in that new space. I was sent the new title plan in order to sign, return and have the Land Registry (LR) entry updated to reflect the change. I did this, however the LR registry was never updated, although I have been chasing this up since before the PCN was issued.

Therefore, according to the LR plan, I was not parked in the parking space allocated to my lease, but was parked in the new area allocated (and marked by painted lines).

There is more, due to the configuration of the car park, majority of the parking spaces are side by side, however our space is parallel, with nothing behind the space (except for a temporary metal fence around 20ft behind). Due to this, I was parked at a 90 degree angle to my space, so half the vehicle was in the space, half out. Although it was not impacting any other resident/user of the car park. It is work noting that the PCN was issued for failing to display a permit, not for parking outside a marked bay.

Therefore, I am a little unsure how much this will affect my counter-claim (i.e. primacy of contract, right to peaceful enjoyment, I own the lease etc etc).

I hope this is clear.

The_Deep

The fact remains, the PPC can offer you nothing that you do not already have, therefore you have no need to contract with them. No contract, no breach of contract.

Coupon-mad

Do you mean your new space is at an odd angle, and not as convenient as your first space? If so then the MA (on behalf of the landowner) has failed you in two respects:

- failing to provide a parking bay on the same or comparable terms as before

- allowing a PPC to infest the car park and to interfere with your lease rights and easements.

Read up on Kettel v Bloomfold, which was about replacement parking spaces imposed on residents:

https://www.bristows.com/news-and-publications/articles/parking-rights-and-the-implications-for-developers-following-kettel-v-bloomfold/

HTH

m0nar0

Hello all,

My court hearing is rapidly approaching (3 1/2 weeks away now)!

I am in the process of writing my Witness Statement (and potentially skeleton argument) for which I am aware needs to be submitted at least 14 days before the hearing.

I submitted the following Defence:

##### Defence Start #####

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 06th January 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 Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from 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.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as #######. The Defendant has, since ## October 2015, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. ## at that location.

4. The self contained car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to all residents, and no alternative parking is provided for those who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking area is by means of a key code, 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.
5.1 The definitions, at Schedule 5, Part 2 of Estate Regulations, para. 7, state “Not to use the Parking Space other than for the parking of a private motor car or private motorcycle which has an MOT certificate if required and which is in the regular use of the Tennant or other occupier of the Property”.
5.2 The definitions, at Schedule 5, Part 2 of Estate Regulations, para. 9, state “Not to park any vehicles on the Estate Common Parts”.
5.3. 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 proposed to the residents nor passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/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.
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, 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 £174.49, 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 case 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.

##### Defence Finish #####

I am sure I will have many questions over the next few days... I am starting to get very nervous!

KeithP

m0nar0 wrote: »

I am starting to get very nervous!

Only natural.

Have a look at this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

m0nar0

Hi again folks!

I would very much appreciate a review/comments on my proposed Witness Statement. I am a little concerned that I am trying to attack with multiple arguments, which may not be necessary.

I feel my primary argument is a) As the PPC are not party to my lease, they cannot vary it and b) my right to peaceful enjoyment has been violated.

###### WS Start ######

1. I am ##### , of [property], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am a Leaseholder of the abovementioned property since ## October 2015. See Exhibit A.

3. During the early hours of ## January 2018, a vehicle under my control, registration no #### ### was parked in the area allocated to [flat no] within the boundary of the [property] car park. At 0253h, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was unfairly issued to my vehicle by UK Car Park Management Ltd. See Exhibit B.

3. As per my Defence, I rely upon Schedule 5, Part 2 of Estate Regulations found within the lease (Exhibit A), which does not state at any point that a valid parking permit be displayed.

4. Furthermore, as the claimant is not party to the lease on the property outlined in point one of this witness statement, I argue that the claimant does not have the right to alter the lease by requiring residents to display a permit. I refer you to Exhibit C (Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]), which details an almost identical case in which the claim was dismissed due to this fact.

5. I also strongly argue that my right to peaceful enjoyment has been violated, and continues to be violated with the presence of UK Car Park Management operating, and penalising residents of [property name].

6. In addition, Exhibit D is provided as further evidence of our right as a resident and leaseholder to park within the car park. This information, namely the barrier code, is only issued to residents of the building to ensure non-residents are disallowed from parking within the [property name] car park.

7. Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, I immediately contacted the current Managing Agent (##### Property Management - although not party to the lease), and the Freeholder (######) in order to have this Parking Charge Notice voided in the knowledge that I am the Leaseholder of the parking space itself. Neither the managing agent, nor Freeholder accepted my argument and subsequently refused to take action.

8. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation. I also appealed to the International Parking Community (IPC) which also rejected my appeal. According to many others in this situation this is all too common, clearly displaying the biased nature towards the Private Parking Company industry.

9. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

Exhibit List

A. Lease of the flat
B. Scan of PCN
C. Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016
D. Proof of car park code

###### WS End ######

Many thanks in advance!

KeithP

If a Judge were to say "Mr m0nar0, can you please explain how promissory estoppel, in paragraph 9, is relevant"?

What would your answer be?

m0nar0

Thanks KeithP for your quick reply (again)

When building my WS, I found the line in a template, I did a quick Google (<5 minutes) but could not understand the jargon! I assumed it was applicable but over my head.

I will re-read and come back to you!

Coupon-mad

Promissory estoppel is not relevant to your case. And remove or re-word this (below) as it really doesn't help to tell the Judge that the Managing Agents were not with you!

7. Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, I immediately contacted the current Managing Agent (##### Property Management - although not party to the lease), and the Freeholder (######) in order to have this Parking Charge Notice voided in the knowledge that I am the Leaseholder of the parking space itself. Neither the managing agent, nor Freeholder accepted my argument and subsequently refused to take action.

I would also include the POFA Schedule 4 and highlight the fact that there has to be a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' for a parking charge to be recoverable from the registered keeper of a vehicle. And you should say in your WS that neither a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' exists in this case, because the D is a resident and the driver was using this owned space under the terms of the leasehold title. State that the unjustified (in a secure car park where this is not needed or wanted) imposition of onerous terms, restrictions, obligations and charges not set out in the lease, constitutes substantial interference with the enjoyment of the leaseholder's grant and property.

If there is more than one driver of this car and you cannot be sure who parked that day ages ago, then say so, and include as evidence a copy of the car insurance from that year, with the additional drivers' names partly visible but partly redacted (maybe cover their first names).

You need to also include your Costs Schedule at this WS stage, and a contents page, with all pages numbered and all evidence exhibits numbered.

And your defence talked about a specific L&T Act section, so that should be an exhibit!

And how about Saeed v Plustrade as an exhibit? Seems relevant to me, especially as you had your parking space moved and then a permit scheme foisted upon you. This case has some useful quotes:

Sir Christopher Slade: ''The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee ''the right to park his private motor car''. The parties clearly contemplated that this was a right which would be capable of being exercised. As [counsel] pointed out on behalf of the claimant, the function of specifying a part of the retained property for parking purposes was equally clearly conferred upon the lessor for the purpose of giving effect of that right and not for the purpose of enabling him to extinguish it. The subject matter of the grant of a right to park was not on the true construction of paragraph 7 of the second schedule to the lease a right wholly determinable at the whim of the lessor. [...] The attitude [...] appears to have been ''since we have the power to specify a parking area it logically follows that we have the power to withdraw a specification or not to specify at all''. In my judgment, this attitude represents a breach of the well known and well established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant.''

The case transcript is what you need (you can use a highlighter pen to pick out certain phrases/findings,to assist the Judge in the paper version you take to the local court in a ring binder):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2011.html

And lastly you need the two judgments (Caernarfon and the IOW) and the wording about the fake added £60 and £50, that you will find in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy. That's not a defence as such to the PCN but is a form of words used as damage limitation if the Judge is not with you - at least he/she could be led to the right conclusion that the added £60 and £50 costs are a lie and unrecoverable.