Claim form pack arrived for parking fines on private land

DoaM

Is it actually headed Notice of Trial Date? Or does that word actually say Hearing?

(This is a civil claim - there is no trial, only a hearing).

simone82

Hi, yes it actually says Trial date


I've read it 3 times now, there is no reference as to when my WS needs to be submitted???!!!!

DoaM wrote: »

Is it actually headed Notice of Trial Date? Or does that word actually say Hearing?

(This is a civil claim - there is no trial, only a hearing).

Le_Kirk

Is it on the back? It doesn't always give a date, just "14 days before hearing."

simone82

No nothing like that at all, really worried now


Shall I take a pic of the paperwork and send over? I haven't got a printer at home so can't scan the documents etc....

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Is it on the back? It doesn't always give a date, just "14 days before hearing."

Le_Kirk

I would phone the court on Monday and ask them when they would like the documentation as their paperwork is deficient.

simone82

Will call first thing....thank you for your advice

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I would phone the court on Monday and ask them when they would like the documentation as their paperwork is deficient.

simone82

Update: Going through all of the paperwork received this evening and found a document titled " Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) dated 26/7/2019.


This document details what I need to do and by when, everything needs to be in no later than 14 days before the hearing date.


I have also noted that even though I have requested all documents and photographic evidence of each PCN they have only sent me the info for 2 out of 7.


Now it could be that I have misplaced this paperwork (highly unlikely) but I cannot be sure. I've always kept all documentation together in a pile and every other piece of paperwork for the 2 cases are all in one place. Do you think its possible that Gladstone's have intentionally not sent me all of the requested info and is this relevant?


Is it worth requesting again or telling the Judge on the day that I have not received all of the details of the 7 PCN's? I'm not relying on the PCN photographic evidence in my WS so am not sure if its that important?

KeithP

Then with a hearing on 4th March, you have until 19th February to file (with the court) and serve (on the Claimant) all documents upon which you intend to rely.

Those docs being your Witness Statement, your evidence and your Costs Schedule.

Redx

I would email a SAR to the parking company to get all the missing documents etc , ALL of your data about YOU the subject (plus your vehicle) , adding proof of I D like a copy of the V5C or claim form


we did tell you that the court had told you the details about evidence submission etc

simone82

This is my first draft of my WS, assuming that the Judge does infact merge my two claims together.! Do I need to attach a copy of the POFA in my bundle?! And do you think I need to quote any further cases eg Jopson, Saeed or Parkinson??


TIA


I am XXXX, of XXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter and will say as follows.


The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge.! Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.


I deny every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.! The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims like this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.! I bring your attention to the set particulars of the claims, for example copy and paste mis management of incorrect dates on the particulars which give no clue to the dates specified or in question.


Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass.! However, it is denied that I, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.


Due to the sparseness of evidence pertaining to this alleged contravention and of the particulars, a Service Access Request (SAR) was made to the claimants address on the 16th January 2019 for all information pertaining to this matter (Exhibit ?).


The Claimant failed to comply within the statutory time limit for responding to the SAR and completely ignored it until I queried with the Claimant in June 2019.! The Claimant sent a few documents but not the full information requested including copies of the original penalty notices or photographic proof.! A further letter was sent to the Claimants requesting this on the 13th August 2019 (Exhibit ?).! Once again the Claimant only provided me with some parts of the requested documentation.


A last request was sent for the missing paperwork on the 24th January 2020


Failure of the Claimant to comply with the SAR can only be seen as an attempt by the Claimant to disadvantage me by denying full disclosure of the information they held.


As a resident of the location where the Parking Charge Notices in question were issued, I have a right to park in this location at all times.! As proof of this, I am providing a copy of my Assured Tenancy Agreement as evidence (Exhibit ?).


There are no terms within the Tenancy Agreement requiring residents to display parking permits to use the residential car park, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.


It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and myself through signage or that there was any agreement between myself and the Claimant.! I aver that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the tenancy agreement.


My vehicles were clearly 'authorised' as per the lease and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the residential car park.


The car park area is accessed via a locked gate which residents have the key for.! The Claimant’s operatives do not have the key to enter the car park, and have to park their vehicle outside the gated area and use the pedestrian gate to enter the car park area.! The Claimant’s involvement in this car park area is supposedly to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual residents, their families and their invited guests.! Instead the claimant’s carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.


I am in possession of a key which is required to provide access to the residential car park where the PCNs were issued.! Possession of this key fob is prima facie evidence that I have permission to park in this location, as a vehicle cannot legitimately access the car park without it.


The scheme operated by PCM Limited in the residential car park in question was put into place in order to prevent anti-social behaviour and non-residential parking in the location by unauthorised persons against the interests of the residents as confirmed by my landlord Catalyst Housing (Exhibit ?).!


My Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement is the legal basis upon which I occupy the property.! On the subject of parking, it states "...Not to park or cause to be parked any vehicle on the Premises or on any land belonging to the Association except in defined parking areas and only in the matter permitted or required by the Association in accordance with any regulations or by-laws, but not such as to cause nuisance or obstruction.." (Exhibit ?).


The agreement does not specify any other conditions of parking, therefore I rely upon this contract as having primacy of contract over any purported contractual terms asserted by the Claimant's signage (Exhibit ?).


I refer to previous cases such as Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] (Exhibit ?), where it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.


This Claimant is trying to run our residential car park like a commercial site, on the same punitive terms as a trespasser would be charged.! This would clearly be a derogation from grant and I wish to make clear that I did not agree to contractual terms, just because a permit was imposed upon me with no opt out offered.! Permits were displayed as a courtesy only, to show other residents who was parked.


Paper permits are an outdated an inefficient way of managing a residential car park. They do not take into account the needs of residents, who may have to swap cars at short notice, or who may bestow permission on another to use their space.


Responsible parking companies will either use a modern, electronic system that does not require paper permits, or will cancel charges accidentally issued to residents or their guests. Therefore, I contend that the purported parking restrictions are not in place to deter trespassers but to extort money from myself, other residents and our legitimate visitors.


The Claimant did not display clear, large, prominent signs within the site that were capable of being read from the driver's seat and/or forming a contract, contrary to PoFA and the Beavis Vs ParkingEye 2015 case. (Exhibit ? Pictures of Signage). !From the pictorial evidence you can see that the font type is incredibly small and would not be legible from the driver’s seat, and is purely aimed at only unauthorised drivers, not myself.


Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis vs ParkingEye case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if not a ‘permit holder’.! A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.


I would like to point out that within the car park there are numerous signs clearly stating that the car park is for “residents only”, and no mention of requiring a permit. (Exhibit ?)


The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit E) 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 my 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.


The Claimant, 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 I am unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.


In a comparable residential estate unfair private parking ticket case no. C7GF81FK in 2017, District Judge Britton at Aldershot & Farnham UKCPM v Niven dismissed the parking firm's contention that they were authorised to impose a parking scheme requiring permits at the estate, stating: ''It is simply not a case where, as the Supreme Court dealt with in Beavis v ParkingEye, there is a situation where the company which grants the right to administer a parking scheme has the sole right to say who can and cannot park on there and a situation where the freeholder or the landowner has not granted other rights over the land already. This is one where the freeholder has already granted a right to park and that cannot be affected or discharged without either a variation of the tenancy agreement, which has not happened, or a novation agreement involving all the people who were involved in this particular agreement.! Therefore on that basis, there is a pre-existing right to park” (Exhibit ?).


In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Debt Collection Costs of £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant since no debt has been collected. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


Furthermore, POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.


Both Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is seeking recovery of interest.! The date from which this is claimed, the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation and the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date are not specified.! As such, the claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.


A similarly artificially inflated claim was struck out as an abuse of process by District Judge Jones-Evans of Caernarfon Justice Centre on 04/09/19 without a hearing, due to the additional charge being deemed a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss and so unenforceable in law.! The judge stated that the whole case was, ‘nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the supreme court in Beavis’ (VCS v Davies) (Exhibit ?).


A second, similarly artificially inflated claim was struck out as an abuse of process by District Judge Grand of Newport County Court on 24/11/18 without a hearing, due to the additional charge not being POFA 2012 compliant or reflecting the Beavis case (UKCPM v Esplanade Ltd) (Exhibit ?).


My local MP, XXXX has stated that supports the debate in Parliament regarding the Parking Code (Code of Practice) Act 2019, he welcomes the bill that was passed in March 2019 and hopes that this law will whittle out the rogue parking companies, along with bad practices (Exhibit ?).


Finally, having outlined my witness statement with supporting evidence, I encourage the court to strike out the claims against myself as there are no sound grounds of claim and to grant compensation in accordance to my cost of schedule (Exhibit ?)


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.