Devere Parkingin residential space

damnParking

I have contacted my landlord and said that his solicitor has that document (probably he has a copy too, would be the most logical thing), looks like he is not willing to give me the copy. But he is certain that there is nothing related to the parking in the document as it is the company that manages the building the one that deals with it and he has referred me to the Block Management rules that I mentioned in the 11th post that textually says :

"The car park is monitored by a monitoring company who will impose fines on vehicles not clearly displaying a parking permit or adhering to the parking regulations."

Shouldn´t they have provided me with proof? A picture maybe at least?

damnParking

Hello again,
Finally he has been able to share the lease agreement with me, this is the only bit where something relate to the parking:
"The tenant shall not park or permit to be parked any car, van or another vehicle in any accessway on the Estate"
Nothing else.
Thanks,
Ed

damnParking

Any advice on how to proceed please?

Coupon-mad

i just wanted someone more professional than I am to deal with the legal language.

Even more reason to steer well clear of the current batch of unqualified, greedy and reportedly aggressive 'appeals firms' then! Out of the frying pan, into the fire for some poor victims, by accounts on TrustPilot.

Including replies by the company itself that make your eyes water (partly with laughter if, like me, you can see right through it). But people do not deserve such aggression.

A horrible state of affairs to avoid.

damnParking wrote: »

Any advice on how to proceed please?

I told you this already but your defence isn't based on the one I said:

Show us your draft defence based on bargepole's concise examples in the NEWBIES thread.

Instead you've used a really old one that is partly doomed due to copying 4 year old arguments about no genuine pre-estimate of loss (that will lose).

damnParking

I think I have understood better the situation here, the one I used was from one of those threads in that post, but definitely it was not the right reasons to base my defence, I understand that I need to base my defence on the fact that they need to prove that I was the driver (as they have just sent the charge to the registered keeper), the fact that the T´s and c´s on the signals are not adequate to enter in a contract between them and me and also that there is nothing referring to this on the lease agreement of my landlord, however I have not been able to defend this last point.

I have updated my defence, please have a look when u have the chance, as the last day to send my defence is on Monday before 4pm, and there is still work to do.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YwSA-W4HyXXAeod13wrMiuDpGNyMiCh4Ugt0AOU99o4/edit?usp=sharing

Thank u

damnParking

Nothing? Please any feedback will be really helpful

Coupon-mad

I've copied it here so people can see it on your thread rather than looking at a link (your version has numbering but Notepad - that I used in between - removed them!):


I am xxxxxx xxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case. I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant’s, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant’s Solicitors.

It is admitted that the defendant, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of both vehicles with registration marks XXXXX and XXXXX, which are the subjects of these proceedings.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

The facts are that the mentioned vehicles of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, were parked on the material dates in one bay of the parking lot at PARKING PLACE

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.

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of Parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

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 the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I can see that I would be adding that:

- you have primacy of contract in your lease, which is silent about any obligation or contractual requirements or charges for the implied grant, right or easement of parking (look at bargepole's example defence about residential car parks), and

- the only times these two cars are briefly without a permit is the minutes taken to fetch it from indoors, or if briefly stopping to load/unload an item, or when transferring the permit from one car to the other.

- Given that the photo evidence disclosed thus far merely shows each car for a few minutes (is that true? If so use it against them!) there is no evidence that the car was either 'parked' and left without a permit. Any contravention is denied and the Claimant is put to better proof than a few photographs over x minutes, which in fact represent embarrassing evidence of this Claimant's notorious reputation for predatory ticketing, in this case likely to have been whilst the driver's back was turned fetching the permit from the other car.

damnParking

You are right, I guess it will be helpful for people in the future if the content remains posted here, sorry for the extra work and thank you very much for the additions. I really really appreciate the help provided.

Just one more thing, and I will file my defence,, about the last point you mentioned, no evidence has been provided at all here (no photos of the car at all) in one of the cases I read there was a point about this, but I can´t find it now  is it something I should add? Can u provide a nice working for it if it is?

damnParking

Hi I am back I already filed my defence and I have received now the questionnaire to fill out and also I have received the one from Devere, as expected, they have chosen Bournemouth as hearing venue but I definitely don´t want it to be there, in the dates not available, they have written "Court advised". Why have they done that? They might have changed my copy?
What would be a great reason to want the hearing somewhere else?
Thanks

Redx

read the court guide by BARGEPOLE in the NEWBIES thread

choose your own local civil court (google it)

use the CCBC dq , not the claimants


your reason, if you are a private individual, you get to choose