Link parking residential claim

Coupon-mad

I think there are two claims in play, one in the partner's name now.

System

That’s correct Coupon-mad. To clarify it all, my partner was also ticketed by Link for parking in our space around the same time that I was. Seeing as she has received exactly the same letters from Link Parking and BW legal as I have, I’ve taken the advice on here and applied it to both claims in exactly the same way, given that the circumstances are exactly the same.

They’ve only started to differ now. I’ve posted a reply I received from BW legal to a letter I sent them, written based on Coupon-mads guidance, further back in this thread. My partner sent the same letter to BW legal and got no reply from them. Instead she has immediately been sent an N1 claim form.

Redx

so stop worrying about the pre action protocols as B W LEGAL are clearly following their clients instructions to issue 2 court claims and have done so and paid the filing fees as well

post the ISSUE DATE of each court claim, top right of each N1 form

both of you email a SAR to LINK to their DPO if its not already been done , with proof of ID syuch as a pic or scan of the appropriate N1 form

both of you do the AOS online asap using the MCOL reference

the NEWBIES thread post #2 tells you all you need to know about all of this, both of you read and digest it carefully

both of you draft a defence and post the common defence below , even though each of you is goinG to email it to the CCBC

FOCUS ON THE HERE AND NOW, NOT THE PAST (those letters etc you did were just the starters to this main course)

System

There is only one court claim, that against my partner, I haven’t been issued an N1 form. I’m puzzled why they’ve sent her a court claim and not me, given they’ve received the same letters etc from both of us. But, no matter I suppose.

I’ve posted the issue date of the N1 form in an earlier post.

We’ve both sent SARS to link parking and had replies from them, they didn’t ask for any ID. All the SARS contained were copies of the NTK/Reminder letters they’d already sent us, along with photos of our vehicles that they took when issuing the tickets and copies of emails we’d exchanged with them during the appeal process.

I’ll post the defence on here once MCOL is complete and I’ve written it up.

KeithP

LeedsRhinos123 wrote: »

Thanks, issue date is 05 June 2019, should we wait until the end of the 14 day period before replying or just do it as soon as we have our defense ready?

I am going to assume that the Claim Form came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th June, you have until Monday 24th June to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Of course, everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the Defendant.

System

Thanks KeithP! Yes, the claim form did come from the CCBC in Northampton. AOS has been completed in time and my draft defence is below, all help and comments very much appreciated:

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 a 'Parking Charge Notice' incurred on DATE. 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. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as 'LOCATION'. The Defendant, from DATE, until DATE, held legal title under the terms of a tenancy agreement, to LOCATION at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the parking area is by means of a key fob and a code, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. The defendant refers the court to: C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham. In this case, which pertains to the same residential development as this claim, the judge found that the site managing agent, Isis Cardiff Management Ltd, had no right to interfere with residents demised parking spaces: “Moreover, I have real concerns as to whether this space, and the management of this particular space, falls within their ambit as a management company. Their (…) obligations related to the common parts of the property. This parking space does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original lease and I have not seen such a variation.”

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 passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Parking in this area is permitted for: vehicles displaying a valid parking permit and parked in the correct allocated bay’, 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 £xx 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 £xx, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

-12. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

13. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

14. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

15. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

16. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

17. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

18. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

19. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

20. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

21. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
21.1. 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.