Going to court for parking in my own spot

Half_way

MA= Managing agents, in other words the company/body that is employed to look after the etate/area who should be working for the residents.

MrDramatique

Ah well the Land Management Agents have instructed District Enforcement to drop all charges and court proceedings against me. They've ignored but I do have a signed letter from the Land Agents formally instructing them.

Umkomaas

MrDramatique wrote: »

Ah well the Land Management Agents have instructed District Enforcement to drop all charges and court proceedings against me. They've ignored but I do have a signed letter from the Land Agents formally instructing them.

That will be gold dust in any court case.

Redx

Maybe we need a new acronym of LMA to go with MA ? Never gets easier does it ?

Le_Kirk

Redx wrote: »

Maybe we need a new acronym of LMA to to with MA ? Never gets easier does it ?

Maybe they could both be added to the NEWBIE post # 5, list of acronyms. Shame Coupon-mad is so busy with other stuff, like holidays, work, life, at the moment.

Half_way

MrDramatique wrote: »

Ah well the Land Management Agents have instructed District Enforcement to drop all charges and court proceedings against me. They've ignored but I do have a signed letter from the Land Agents formally instructing them.

As previous, this is key.
I would go one step furhter and demand that the pakrng company stops processing your personal data, halts any furhter action and deltes all your records, in accordance with GDPR .


Should they continues/ignore you you will have some extremly good grounds to go for them in court for unreasonable action, and a counter claim for GDPR breaches

MrDramatique

Hi guys,

So as some of you might know I've got until the 20th, 4pm to ensure my updated defense is received by both the court and claimant which really gives me until the 18th.

I'm not the type to leave things late but work and a short dip in health forced my hand.

I feel I need to amend my defence and add two major points to the prelims.
1. There's no consideration. (need help with this)
2. I've an original copy of a letter from the land management company, signed the company secretary that formally instructs DE to drop all charges and related legal action.

I've included my defence below for anyone who wishes to advise etc.

Claim Number: #######
Defendant:
#########

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Claim is inadequate and the particulars lack any specificity. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence due to said lack of specificity. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand their Particulars in any shape of form at a later stage of proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim 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. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to negotiate at any stage and engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is likely to be the driver of vehicle registration #### ### which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with ###### with one named driver permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on ###### the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ######


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his 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/tenant of leaseholder of ######### whose lease agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) in designated parking bays. 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 an 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. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

6. 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.

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

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clear parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording legibility and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3; furthermore
8.1.4 Signage is not present upon entry to the residence courtyard / car park.
8.1.5 The signage contained illegible terms in small print in relation to extra charges that cannot be read at any reasonable distance.
8.1.6 Signage is not legible in dark hours due to non-existent signage lighting.

8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. 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. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. 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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

Remove #1. It's waffle. start with what you have numbered as #2.

Remove this from #3 as it's unnecessary detail in your case, with one driver:

The vehicle is insured with ###### with one named driver permitted to use it.

Remove this phrase from #5 as it makes no sense in the light of one driver!

or lawful users of his vehicle

To #6, add in Link v Parkinson and PACE v Noor (find both in the Parking Prankster's case law/more case law page online and read them - you will find the claim numbers and court to mention, and you'll probably find a useful phrase to quote!).

Remove what you had as 7.3 and change it to:

7.3. any consideration flowed between the Claimant to the Defendant, thus the basic elements of a contract are absent because the Claimant had nothing of value to offer that the Defendant did not already enjoy, on unfettered terms.

7.4. any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' exists in this case, using the definitions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA'), thus the Claimant has no right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. Even in cases where the driver is known, it is clear from the POFA that Parliament (who have recently passed legislation expressly to curb the worst rogue practices of parking firms including this Claimant) intends that charges for parking on private land must be subject to basic prerequisites of contract and obligation, and adequate notice of the parking charge, and in this case these elements are absent.

7.5. there is any 'legitimate interest' excuse which could have saved this charge from falling foul of the penalty rule, which the Judges in the Beavis case held was 'engaged' in private parking cases, all of which will depend upon their own facts. This charge is set purely to penalise residents and has no commercial, moral or contractual justification and lacks the necessary authority flowing from the landowner. The Defendant avers that the landowner does not support this unfair charge and the Management Agents have instructed District Enforcement to drop all charges and court proceedings against the Defendant. A copy of the signed letter from their principal, formally instructing the Claimant to cancel this meritless claim, will be provided in evidence.

Independent Parking Committee’s

...is the WRONG (old) name for the IPC, so change that.

Then have a final section:

The Claim for Costs is disingenuous, misleading and an abuse of the court process.

And put in my words from post #14 of beamerguy's ABUSE OF PROCESS thread.

MrDramatique

Evening all, after submitting my revised defense as per judges orders I have received an email from gladstones with another attached N180. Do I need to resubmit mine? I assumed the first one would still be valid.

Le_Kirk

Is it in fact the claimant's completed DQ?