N1 Claim Form from PCM for parking in resident bay (as a resident) w/ expired visitor ticket

Coupon-mad

There's always a password bottom right, above the box with the invented £sum.

FightingPCM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

There's always a password bottom right, above the box with the invented £sum.

Oh dear you're right, I was looking at the very bottom - I fear I'm doing this too late in the day...

Thank you!

FightingPCM

Update: I've just found out that it turns out there are two cases. I got two parking charge noticed over two days, and from the subject access request I found out they have actioned two cases for the parking tickets, one personally against me, and one against my company. The correspondence against my company has been going to an old address that has long been gone from companies house.

So now I have two cases, and around £480 worth of charges. And I need to somehow find out what the password and claim number is for the second case.

Am I correcting in the belief that PCM can't create a case for each parking charge notice? And definitely not take different entities? (one me personally, and the other my company)? What Can I do with this?

FightingPCM

On the newbies thread it states that "- and a list of all PCNs they consider are outstanding against you and/or this VRN, and remind them that any claim must be for all PCNs in one claim, not several separate claims." What is the legal groundwork for this and how do I dispute the fact that I have two claims?

FightingPCM

Just wanted to bump this to see if anyone knows the legal groundwork for why two cases for one VRN can't be made!

Coupon-mad

I have two cases, and around £480 worth of charges. And I need to somehow find out what the password and claim number is for the second case

You need to ring the CCBC and ask for a copy of the claim form that has never arrived - to get that you will have to show them ID so ask them how you can possibly do this in time, given you don't even know the claim number, POC, or password! Stay on the phone and escalate the complaint if the CCBC will not give you the claim form copy once they have satisfied themselves you are the data subject/Defendant.]

Or, physically go and get the claim form from the old address (might be easier!).

Re getting the claims consolidated, stop looking for 'legal groundwork'. It is simply enough to state that issuing two claims, one to an old address and one to the right address, and varying the Defendant's name/company name so as to allow two bites at the cherry is an abuse of process, and you wish for the court to consolidate the claims.

You will have to repeat this at EVERY stage till a Judge reads that.

FightingPCM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to ring the CCBC and ask for a copy of the claim form that has never arrived - to get that you will have to show them ID so ask them how you can possibly do this in time, given you don't even know the claim number, POC, or password! Stay on the phone and escalate the complaint if the CCBC will not give you the claim form copy once they have satisfied themselves you are the data subject/Defendant.]

Or, physically go and get the claim form from the old address (might be easier!).

Re getting the claims consolidated, stop looking for 'legal groundwork'. It is simply enough to state that issuing two claims, one to an old address and one to the right address, and varying the Defendant's name/company name so as to allow two bites at the cherry is an abuse of process, and you wish for the court to consolidate the claims.

You will have to repeat this at EVERY stage till a Judge reads that.

Thanks so much, I managed to get the Claim number form Gladstones and then I called the Court up, asked for the AOS form, and then emailed it to them - not ideal but small successes!

FightingPCM

Could someone read over my defence for me? It's due Monday - and I'll be using the same defence for both cases! I used a lot of what was all over the forums and tried to compile it together into one thing that fits my case. Is there anything I should add?


Parking Control Management (UK) Limited
(Claimant)

-and-


XXX
(Defendant)



DEFENCE

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on XXX. 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.

Background

2. It is not admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The Hirer of the vehicle under the registration number XXX has been recognised in a separate claim for Parking Charge Notices by PCM, as XXX Limited (“The Hirer”). The Claimant has made two separate claims for two Parking Charge Notices over the same period, then sent these two claims to two different addresses and nominated to different defendants. – The Hirer and the Defendant. Due to this abuse of the process, Case XXX should be consolidated with XXX, naming the defendant as the Hirer.

3. It is admitted that on XXX the Hirer's vehicle was parked at XXX Estate.

4. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

5 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")

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of the Hirer’s vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XXX, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. 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. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

7. The Defendant avers 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 lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, it is denied that:
10.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
10.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
10.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

11. Furthermore, the Defendant has made the Claimant aware they intend to use the residential parking for vehicle with the marking XXX upon application for a permit with PCM on XXX. This order for the permit was never received, and the Claimant is put under strict proof to provide evidence of receipt of the ordered permit by the Defendant. The Defendant has shown goodwill in applying for a permit, and the Claimant has since been aware that the vehicle with the registration mark XXX belongs to the Defendant residing at XXX as this was on the Claimant’s system and was thus aware of the Defendant’s parking rights as a resident.

12.1. The Hirer’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.

12.2. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 £243.49, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

19. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.


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




………………………………………………………. (Defendant)

……………………… (Date)

FightingPCM

Bumping this in the hope that someone has some advice on my defence

Coupon-mad

If the hirer and the defendant in this case are two different people then you can't ask for the cases to be consolidated...you need to explain more clearly to the court if the two defendants are actually the same person?

Here's some wording written by bargepole about asking for 2 claims to be heard together:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75613167#Comment_75613167