We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
court claim - residents permit (i have read other threads and would like advice please)
roary
Posts: 17 Forumite
All
I have received a claim form dated 20-Jun-2019 based on PCN relating to a vehicle which I am the registered owner. No solicitor firm is handling this case for the claimant.
The details of the incident are shown below
A friend (the tenant) lived in a rented apartment with a car park in the rear. The tenant had a standard tenancy agreement with a landlord. The tenancy agreement doesn’t allow storage of boats caravans or commercial vehicles in the communal carpark without prior consent. The premises can only be used for maintenance of the tenant’s own vehicle. There are no other mentions of the car park in the agreement.
The car park in question was controlled by the claimant (I can provide company name if necessary, but they’re well known on here) and is signposted as private property/valid permit holders. The tenant had not received notification of any permit system and had not received a permit prior to the PCN being issued.
The vehicle was parked in the car park with a note identifying the address of the tenant. The next morning a PCN was stuck on the windscreen. Full details of the PCN can’t be remembered as this was 2015. A quick google search on the claimant company brought me to this site where the general advice was to ignore. This advice was followed as were the additional letters from a range of different solicitors. I received a claim form dated 20-Jun-2019 and the particulars read as follows: -
“The claim is for a breach of contract form breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendants vehicle xxxx was identified in xxxxxxxx on the x/x/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit. At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.”
The amount claimed is £160 plus £25 court fee. I have requested via email a SAR but I understand they have 30 days to provide so the info is unlikely to be received before the defence is submitted.
The sign at the entrance is obscured but I don’t think this is relevant to the case I wish to present. I can provide photos if required. The sign in question states that its private property and you are entering into a contract with the claimant company. Valid permit holders and permit must be displayed. If you do not display a permit you agree to the parking charges below. (This confirm the £100 plus interest).
If this goes to court I will rely on a witness statement from my friend detailing the tenancy and permit situations which they are reliant on.
The acknowledgement of service (AoS) has been sent so the defence must be due on 23rd July. Can someone please confirm what time and date the email is best sent based on 20th June 2019 + AoS.
I am intending to file it as a PDF sent via email (as per the instructions given on this forum) by noon on
I have copied the defence from a similar case and edited where necessary. In the previous case the owner of the vehicle was also the resident however I’m unsure how to reference the different subjects (defendant – owner of vehicle, friend/tenant/colleague ? – any advice would be appreciated)
“
Current draft Defence:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
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 The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. It is admitted that at all 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 this occasion, given the lack of evidence from the Claimant and the fact that multiple people are insured to drive the vehicle.
6. The Defendant is colleagues with a tenant at the location where the Parking Charge Notice in question was issued. The Defendant's landlord is the owner of the flat but its unclear how long the landlord has owned the property for and whether the landlord still owns the property. The landlord has granted his tenants rights to park based upon the demise, grant and/or easements within his own lease for many years this PCN was issued.
7. It is averred that the Defendants colleague is entitled to rely upon the parking rights granted from the landlord, and further up that chain of authority, the landlord is entitled to rely upon his primacy of contract within his lease, in order to grant his tenants an unfettered right to park.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their due diligence by inspecting the Head Lease and considering the rights of the residents, prior to commencing enforcement. This is a location where residents already enjoyed rights that cannot be varied, restricted or charged for, outwith a lease variation (Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 applies). Where a majority of the leaseholders agree to any proposed variation, if there are less than 9 leases all or all but one of the parties must consent and if there are more than 8 leases, 75% of the parties must consent, and not more than 10% must not object to the proposed variation. This degree of consensus is notoriously hard to achieve and it is averred the Claimant has simply not bothered, and merely set up some signs and imposed permits upon people out of the blue, causing an ongoing private nuisance to those affected.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
12.There are no terms within the Defendant’s colleagues Tenancy Agreement requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by Private Parking Company signs unless the Tenant has agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which the Defendant has not.
12.1. There is a large body of case law, which establishes this. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in In Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract.
13. In correspondence received by the Defendant, the Claimant relies 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. Prior to the incident no parking permits were issued to the defendants colleague, nor was the defendants colleague notified of the permit system. A permit was provided along with notification of the system 1 month after this PCN was issued.
15. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendants vehicle was parked “without clearly displaying a valid permit.” The Defendants colleague did not possess a permit at the time of the incident.
16. It is stated within the Tenancy agreement that The Landlord will not ”interrupt or interfere with the tenants lawful occupation enjoyment or use of the premises”. The only restrictions upon parking disallow use of repairs or storage of boats, caravans, or commercial vehicles.
17. The Claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all therefore no contract exists.
18. 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.
19. The principle of primacy of contract of the terms of a Lease, overriding any purported terms conveyed by a parking operator's signage, is well rehearsed in numerous persuasive Judgments given at various County Court hearing centres. The Defendant will provide transcripts of a selection of Approved Judgments supporting this principle at the appropriate time, should this matter proceed to trial.
20. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents. Accordingly, using the statutory wording from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) relating to parking charges on private land, it is denied that:
20.1. there was any 'relevant contract' between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
20.2. there was any 'relevant obligation' (at all) to display a permit.
Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim - no legitimate interest
21. The Defendant avers that there can be no "legitimate interest" in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
22. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.
23. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case for a PCN, a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract'.
24.1. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £160, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.
24.2. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff working for SCS Law in issuing robo-claims.
24.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.
24.4. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by parking firms artificially inflating their robo-claims.
25. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial, the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
26. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
Any help with this would be appreciated. Is there any further defence I can add? If you need photos or more details please let me know
I have received a claim form dated 20-Jun-2019 based on PCN relating to a vehicle which I am the registered owner. No solicitor firm is handling this case for the claimant.
The details of the incident are shown below
A friend (the tenant) lived in a rented apartment with a car park in the rear. The tenant had a standard tenancy agreement with a landlord. The tenancy agreement doesn’t allow storage of boats caravans or commercial vehicles in the communal carpark without prior consent. The premises can only be used for maintenance of the tenant’s own vehicle. There are no other mentions of the car park in the agreement.
The car park in question was controlled by the claimant (I can provide company name if necessary, but they’re well known on here) and is signposted as private property/valid permit holders. The tenant had not received notification of any permit system and had not received a permit prior to the PCN being issued.
The vehicle was parked in the car park with a note identifying the address of the tenant. The next morning a PCN was stuck on the windscreen. Full details of the PCN can’t be remembered as this was 2015. A quick google search on the claimant company brought me to this site where the general advice was to ignore. This advice was followed as were the additional letters from a range of different solicitors. I received a claim form dated 20-Jun-2019 and the particulars read as follows: -
“The claim is for a breach of contract form breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendants vehicle xxxx was identified in xxxxxxxx on the x/x/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit. At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.”
The amount claimed is £160 plus £25 court fee. I have requested via email a SAR but I understand they have 30 days to provide so the info is unlikely to be received before the defence is submitted.
The sign at the entrance is obscured but I don’t think this is relevant to the case I wish to present. I can provide photos if required. The sign in question states that its private property and you are entering into a contract with the claimant company. Valid permit holders and permit must be displayed. If you do not display a permit you agree to the parking charges below. (This confirm the £100 plus interest).
If this goes to court I will rely on a witness statement from my friend detailing the tenancy and permit situations which they are reliant on.
The acknowledgement of service (AoS) has been sent so the defence must be due on 23rd July. Can someone please confirm what time and date the email is best sent based on 20th June 2019 + AoS.
I am intending to file it as a PDF sent via email (as per the instructions given on this forum) by noon on
I have copied the defence from a similar case and edited where necessary. In the previous case the owner of the vehicle was also the resident however I’m unsure how to reference the different subjects (defendant – owner of vehicle, friend/tenant/colleague ? – any advice would be appreciated)
“
Current draft Defence:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
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 The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. It is admitted that at all 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 this occasion, given the lack of evidence from the Claimant and the fact that multiple people are insured to drive the vehicle.
6. The Defendant is colleagues with a tenant at the location where the Parking Charge Notice in question was issued. The Defendant's landlord is the owner of the flat but its unclear how long the landlord has owned the property for and whether the landlord still owns the property. The landlord has granted his tenants rights to park based upon the demise, grant and/or easements within his own lease for many years this PCN was issued.
7. It is averred that the Defendants colleague is entitled to rely upon the parking rights granted from the landlord, and further up that chain of authority, the landlord is entitled to rely upon his primacy of contract within his lease, in order to grant his tenants an unfettered right to park.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their due diligence by inspecting the Head Lease and considering the rights of the residents, prior to commencing enforcement. This is a location where residents already enjoyed rights that cannot be varied, restricted or charged for, outwith a lease variation (Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 applies). Where a majority of the leaseholders agree to any proposed variation, if there are less than 9 leases all or all but one of the parties must consent and if there are more than 8 leases, 75% of the parties must consent, and not more than 10% must not object to the proposed variation. This degree of consensus is notoriously hard to achieve and it is averred the Claimant has simply not bothered, and merely set up some signs and imposed permits upon people out of the blue, causing an ongoing private nuisance to those affected.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
12.There are no terms within the Defendant’s colleagues Tenancy Agreement requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by Private Parking Company signs unless the Tenant has agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which the Defendant has not.
12.1. There is a large body of case law, which establishes this. In Link Parking Ltd vs J. Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in In Pace Recovery v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that:
“…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract.
13. In correspondence received by the Defendant, the Claimant relies 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. Prior to the incident no parking permits were issued to the defendants colleague, nor was the defendants colleague notified of the permit system. A permit was provided along with notification of the system 1 month after this PCN was issued.
15. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendants vehicle was parked “without clearly displaying a valid permit.” The Defendants colleague did not possess a permit at the time of the incident.
16. It is stated within the Tenancy agreement that The Landlord will not ”interrupt or interfere with the tenants lawful occupation enjoyment or use of the premises”. The only restrictions upon parking disallow use of repairs or storage of boats, caravans, or commercial vehicles.
17. The Claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all therefore no contract exists.
18. 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.
19. The principle of primacy of contract of the terms of a Lease, overriding any purported terms conveyed by a parking operator's signage, is well rehearsed in numerous persuasive Judgments given at various County Court hearing centres. The Defendant will provide transcripts of a selection of Approved Judgments supporting this principle at the appropriate time, should this matter proceed to trial.
20. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents. Accordingly, using the statutory wording from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) relating to parking charges on private land, it is denied that:
20.1. there was any 'relevant contract' between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
20.2. there was any 'relevant obligation' (at all) to display a permit.
Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim - no legitimate interest
21. The Defendant avers that there can be no "legitimate interest" in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest" to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
22. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.
23. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case for a PCN, a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract'.
24.1. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £160, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.
24.2. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff working for SCS Law in issuing robo-claims.
24.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.
24.4. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by parking firms artificially inflating their robo-claims.
25. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial, the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
26. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
Any help with this would be appreciated. Is there any further defence I can add? If you need photos or more details please let me know
0
Comments
-
The advice to ignore has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.
Follow the guide to court written by bargepole you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from LBC to the court date and should answer most of your questions.
Who is the taking the keeper to court (the claimant) and who is the solicitor that appears to have added on fake charges please?
Have a look at this thread with regards to this.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegalI married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
The signs have no meaning if the lease/AST grants a right to park, (Primacy of Contract), read this.
https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html
They are obviouslyinterefering with your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, possibly an offence under the Landlord and tenants Act, get your MP on board as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
As this is a 2015 case, I'm guessing VCS? Please tell us.I can provide company name if necessary
24.2 talks about a solicitor firm, SCS Law, who are not involved, so delete that.
And this bit is confusing. Your landlord?The Defendant is colleagues with a tenant at the location where the Parking Charge Notice in question was issued. The Defendant's landlord is the owner of the flat
Finally, search the forum for:
- PACE v Lengyel defence as you need to rely on that case too, saying that the contract is void for impossibility against a non permit holder.
and
- PCM v Bull defence as you need to also say that the sign creates no licence for non permit holders so it is prohibitive, and not contractual wording for such drivers.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
e claim has been issued by a well known company on here. I haven’t mentioned them as I understand they use these forums to assist their defence.
If I google the signatory of the claimant I’m informed that he is the associate legal executive for his company so it would appear that he is the solicitor who has added on the fake charges. I will ensure an abuse of process statement is added and maybe a reference to the Southampton case0 -
Your target date is almost right, provided that you did the AoS by 9th July. Did you do the AoS by that date?I have received a claim form dated 20-Jun-2019...
The acknowledgement of service (AoS) has been sent so the defence must be due on 23rd July. Can someone please confirm what time and date the email is best sent based on 20th June 2019 + AoS.
I am intending to file it as a PDF sent via email (as per the instructions given on this forum) by noon on...
With a Claim Issue Date of 20th June, and assuming you did the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 24th July 2019 to file your Defence.
That's just over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but please 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
There are now two Southampton court claims to cite plus the IOW one.
Search the forum for DJ Grand to find the latest order/claim no. posted this week.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
can anyone confirm what is the best way to refer to the tenant/resident/my friend in the defence statement?
i need to clearly distinguish between myself (defendant) and this person
i'll list as many abuse of proccess cases as i can as this should give the judge some guidance
coupon mad - you guessed the company name correct!
i'll go through these links, make the necessary changes and post my amended defence on here
thanks all0 -
Just say that the Defendant was an authorised visitor, relying upon the rights & easements enjoyed by residents and visitors to xxxxx (location) and will adduce the resident's tenancy agreement in evidence.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
if the defendant is an authorised visitor does that not imply that the defendant was driving??0
-
The defendant can be a passenger.
Cars usually have more than one seat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards