Parking fine on own property with pictures sent by neighbours

Guys_Dad

Fruitcake wrote: »

The important thing is to work out, with whom do YOU have a parking contract?

If there is nothing in your lease/AST, no agreement with your landlord, and nothing in your head lease, then you are not required to display a permit, and your lease/AST has primacy over anything a third party unregulated scammer says, and any PCN you have received has been unfairly issued, and your data unlawfully obtained from the DVLA.

I disagree. If you have nothing in your AST, and the PPC has been brought in with consent, then you have a beef with your landlord if the landlord was acquiescent in bringing in the PPC, not the management company.

As a tenant, you are bound by the lease that the landlord has with the landowner. If your landlord isn't interested, they your case is infinitely harder to fight.

mjf87

Fruitcake wrote: »

The important thing is to work out, with whom do YOU have a parking contract?

If there is nothing in your lease/AST, no agreement with your landlord, and nothing in your head lease, then you are not required to display a permit, and your lease/AST has primacy over anything a third party unregulated scammer says, and any PCN you have received has been unfairly issued, and your data unlawfully obtained from the DVLA.

Either way, i was displaying a permit at the time and have photographic proof of it from the exact date. I will have to find out and see if i can view the contract between the owner of the flat and strata management.

mjf87

NeilCr wrote: »

Have you, in any way, got an allocated space that is for your sole use?

There are signs that said Flat A, Flat B, Flat C etc that have been there since long before UK CPM were involved but as there were no markings on the ground they never particularly had boundaries of size. Three cars parked in a Row where the back space (mine) could park a second car beside the first blocking my first car in, the middle space owned by the disgruntled neighbours and the people with the space at the front where they could squeeze in a small car at the front before the gate. Also two other spaces to the side that could double park 2 cars each one behind the other without interfering with anyone else.

NeilCr

Okay

So sounds like the disgruntled neighbours may have found out (decided) that, whatever the signs say, the spaces aren't actually owned by the flats that the numbers indicate

All a bit messy

I'd try and find out who the freeholder of the block is - as I say, it might well be the owners of the flats as a residents association.. If it is they will employ strata and will have some influence over them. Your landlord should know

As a couple of us have commented you do need sight of your landlord's lease to see what that says (or doesn't say) about parking

mjf87

So I have taken the most part of a defence i found that was fairly similar to my current situation but have added in some particulars in the middle that are specific to myself. Do I need to add more or change those bits or anything?

Admittedly, I havent yet seen the contract my landlords have with the freeholder or management in reference to parking but have left that section in incase parking is referred to in the contract.

As a further addition to this claim, I have received a second claim now from UK CPM for 3 other dates. Thankfully again I have pictures showing my car parked with my vehicle pass in the window.

Please see below with my addition in bold


Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. 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 unevidenced 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 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 the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. 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")
5.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her 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 [address], 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. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

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.

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.

Vehicle was parked legally
8. The communal parking area within which the vehicle resided did not contain yellow lines, paved, hatched or landscaped areas. Furthermore there were no marked bays within the communal parking area.

9. The vehicle can be proved to have been parked with a valid UK CPM permit clearly displayed in the windscreen with photographs for these specific dates held as evidence by the defendant.

10. The vehicle was parked in a position that did not affect access to parking or entry to the residence of any other residents.

Failure to set out clearly parking terms
11. 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.
11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
11.1.2. 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
11.1.3. 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
11.2. 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.

12. 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.

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

14. 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.

[Deleted User]

What does the sign say? That's the alleged contract. Since you now have no time to get documents, it's worth checking the terms you're alleged to have breached to ensure your best points are made.
Example
If, for example, it says "parking in marked bays only" and there are none marked up, it's gonna be difficult for the PPC to enforce I'd have thought...

If it's definitely the neighbour taking photos it's worth considering if this should be defended in your name so that your witness statement can be punchier - you could say nice things about him, hypothetically.

Admittedly, I havent yet seen the contract my landlords have with the freeholder or management in reference to parking but have left that section in incase parking is referred to in the contract.

A bold strategy, my friend, bold. So you want a major part of your defence to be founded on something you might not be able to prove and which is based on your lease not supported at all? I'd think long and hard about that if it were me...

mjf87

I have a picture of the sign form Pre GDPR but cant send it i suppose as im a fairly new user. Its not particularly informative sign. Ive typed it below instead:

Private property terms & conditions

A valid UK CPM permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times
You must park wholly within a marked bay. No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched or lanscaped areas

If unsure please seek further advice from CPM or refrain from parking

By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all the Terms and Conditions. Breach of ANY term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a

PARKING CHARGE OF £100

Parking charges are to be paid within 28 days. Additional parking charges apply for each 24 hour period, or part thereof, that the vehicle remains in breach or if it returns at any time. Terms and Conditions apply 24 hours a day, all year round. Where a parking charge becomes due an application may be made to the DVLA for the keeper's details. Non-payment will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis. Automatic Number Plate recognition may be in use. Images may be captured and retained for enforcement purposes. We are not liable for any loss or damage howsoever caused to any person or property whilst on this site save under any statutory exceptions. Mangaged by: UK Car Park Management LTD. PO Box ..... [followd by the phone number, a big blue P and the CPM, IAS and IPC logos



As Its unlikely that I will be able to see the landlords contract before the date that the defence is due I thought it may be best to have it in my defence incase it is useful to the case rather than just not put it in and then not be able to use it at all. If you think its better for me to remove it then I definitely will. I have zero experience about this :rotfl:.

Also, I wasnt exactly sure how to word it but Im pretty sure the pictures that UK CPM have aren't really up to standard in regards to properly showing my windscreen and all that. The pictures were just taken by my neighbour and sent to them and im pretty sure she didnt do it correctly. I sent a subject access request to UK CPM but thus far they havent even responded to it.

Egbert_Nobacon

I know you’re very short of time but If they are claiming a fake £60 add on then Coupon-mad’s ABUSE OF PROCESS needs to be included.

Add paragraph numbers accordingly:-


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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:

The Judge stated:-
''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...''

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

[Deleted User]

This.

Vehicle was parked legally
8. The communal parking area within which the vehicle resided did not contain yellow lines, paved, hatched or landscaped areas. Furthermore there were no marked bays within the communal parking area.

So what you are actually saying is that this clause of the contract

You must park wholly within a marked bay. No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched or lanscaped areas

is impossible to perform.

There are no marked bays (that is unusual - check for coloured flagstones). No bays means it's arguably all roadway. So basically it is impossible to park within those rules, everyone is automatically in breach and triggering a penalty.

That's no good as a contract under the doctrine of impossibility (Google it). You'll need good photos for your witness statement to prove the point.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for Pace v Lengyel defence and you will find similar cases with defences already filed.