Without a written contract is a parking charge notice enforceable?

KeithP

Sweetpeas72 wrote: »

Thank you for your response.

The claim form is dated 24/05/2019 and the address is within the small print which is County Court within our local area.

Ah, sorry for asking for that info.

I hadn't realised you were past the Defence filing stage.

Sweetpeas72

Hi all, I do apologise I have been having issues with posting on the threads.

I am unable to copy it all over due to the Amount of words:

I have written out the below defence; please let me know what you all think:

Defence
Preliminary

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

Background

4. It is admitted that at all of the material times the Defendant was the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny whether they were the driver who parked the vehicle on each or every occasion, given the lack of evidence from the Claimant as the Claimant acknowledges and the fact the car may be driven by more than one relative. Where this was known for sure such as Parking Charge Notice PCNXXXXXXX, it was paid for but the cheque returned.
The Claimant avers that the Defendant did not provide the information of the driver but as the other driver states a payment was made in full predominantly since it was the only parking charge that fell within the contract period the claimant had with the landowner. It was therefore felt no further information was required.

5. The Claimant acknowledges that they are governed and operate by BPA guidelines.

“The Claimant notes that the BPA Code of Practice require written Authorisation”

Given the fact the BPA lay down explicit guidelines within section 2.2 where it provides the following guidelines for its members

Sweetpeas72

It is important to be clear about such terms and conditions when setting up a parking management contract with a landlord. The general rule is that the principal and not the agent can take steps to enforce a contract. If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie the landlord) to do so. If you have been granted full parking management rights you should ensure that:
· !!!!!!!The property is clearly defined (preferably on a map)
And
· !!!!!!!The landlord with whom you are contracting has ‘possession’ of the land.
It is therefore clear that to be certain about for whom you are acting the Contract must be precise and accurate, in this case the Defendant believes it is anything but clear as to whom the Claimant is acting on behalf of.


5.1 The Defendant was made aware by Social Media that the Claimant did not have the correct authority from the Landowner to administer and issue Parking Charge Notices due to a gap within Contracts and asked consistently for this to be demonstrated by the Claimant. Such Authority is fundamental as laid down by the BPA Guide to Members and the BPA Code Of Practice, Recent case law has and Judgement have been found against Parking Management Companies where the lack of authorisation has existed.

Sweetpeas72

The Defendant then pressed the issue to the Claimant on no fewer than 6 separate occasions initially as early as the 23rd October 2017, this in itself aroused suspicions on behalf of the Defendant as to why these contracts were so difficult to obtain.

The Defendant believes that there is clear ambiguity in fact it is clear from the two contracts that are in existence they are between two completely separate parties on behalf of the Landowner.


Contract executed 28/8/14 between the parties


Chatham Maritime Car Park Management Limited c/o DTZ registered office ‪8346393‬

And

UK Parking Control Ltd Registered Office ‪05104383‬


Then a significant gap !

Sweetpeas72

Contract executed 3/7/16 between the parties

Chatham Maritime Car Park Management Ltd c/o WD Chatham Registered office number ‪06670056‬

And

UK Parking Control Ltd Registered office ‪05104383‬

6 The Courts are asked to note the two differing company numbers within the Contract. The Claimant Denies that such a gap has ever existed and has misleading claimed the following:


6.1 “Please also find enclosed a copy of the contract that covers the issuance of the parking charge notices. We trust this clarifies our clients authority to issue and pursue parking charges at this site. Please note our clients contract continues on a rolling basis until cancelled in writing.


A contract cannot be rolling if it was made in two different names furthermore the contract clearly states a 12 month period.

Sweetpeas72

In relation to the substantial query and the issue you have raised in regards to the rolling contract between our client UK Parking Control and Chatham Maritime please find attached the correspondence between the two contracting parties”


The correspondence referred to does not represent any of the above parties and in any event is dated 19/9/18, it could be stated that UKPC had authority to manage parking but not to operate or issue Parking Charge Notices


“As such our client’s authority under the original contract remained valid until the follow contract, in which their Authority was re codified within a new contract”


The Defendant believes that on this basis the contract cannot simply be rolling or indeed re codified if it was then made between a new party, the fact that a new contract indeed was made argues against the Claimant own position.


7 The Claimant acknowledges they are operating under the BPA code of Practice and goes on to state

Sweetpeas72

The Claimant and the managing agent Chatham Maritime Car Park Management c/o WD Chatham entered into an agreement on the 28th August 2014 and subsequently varied”


This is simply not correct since WD Chatham registered office ‪006670056‬ firstly did not exist as a trading organisation as per Companies house at this time. This can be seen on the Contract itself, and supported by WD Chatham own accounts.


WD Chatham as per the Claimants own contract supplied states WD Chatham did not enter into contract until June 2016 it is therefore clear the Claimant is not acting upon whom he believes he is.

Sweetpeas72

It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct

Sweetpeas72

9. It is denied that any parking charges “loss and/or damage" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

Sweetpeas72

10. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'.

It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.