Court form received help requested

Coupon-mad

 It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle

TRUE, OR A LIE?   You realise what 'deny' means? 

If it was you YOU MUST REMOVE THIS OF COURSE.

sadwithoutmynelson

Coupon-mad said:

 It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle

TRUE, OR A LIE?   You realise what 'deny' means? 

If it was you YOU MUST REMOVE THIS OF COURSE.

Thankyou. Il change this. I wasn't the driver and wasn't even insured on the car at the time Thank you.  

Am I on the right track? 

Le_Kirk

 My Freehold makes no assertion that a permit must not be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so.

Did you mean: -

 My Freehold makes no assertion that a permit must not be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so.

On this matter, i defer to the ruling of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67,

Did you mean: -

On this matter, I refer defer to the ruling of ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67,

Bit more ammunition to strengthen this point: -

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 with no more than 10% disagreeing.

That is coming along nicely, just need to go through it, review any points of repetition, check for any grammar or spelling errors and add the latest statement of truth at the end.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

Thankyou. Il change this. I wasn't the driver and wasn't even insured on the car at the time Thank you.  

Then you DO need to use word 'deny'!  You need to say what you've said above, in your WS!  Really clearly.

sadwithoutmynelson

Coupon-mad said:

Thankyou. Il change this. I wasn't the driver and wasn't even insured on the car at the time Thank you.  

Then you DO need to use word 'deny'!  You need to say what you've said above, in your WS!  Really clearly.

Thankyou. I will change and add that now.

sadwithoutmynelson

i have edited the witness statement but a little stuck on number 14 regarding the reference of Pace and Noor etc. i have read the cases. How can i please expand on these?

Should i add about the delay of the SAR? (Despite asking for a SAR on 29 December 2019, and chasing up with emails I did not receive the SAR til 7th April 2020)

i know i need to still add references. 

I really want the Witness statement to be as strong as possible so that the judge may consider striking the case out including the other case on file as thats a company car and i still get a lot of negativity at work with  senior management having got involved and that is still outstanding after the DQ questionnaire in March which is for the same reasons as this. I also want others to be able to use these documents who are in a similar position. I read the upset and frustration chefdave felt and i too want to come out the  other end and have this as a resource  . 

Coupon-mad

Glad to read you have such a strong resolve to fight this!

Should i add about the delay of the SAR? (Despite asking for a SAR on 29 December 2019, and chasing up with emails I did not receive the SAR til 7th April 2020).

No.  Can you copy & paste your WS here, if necessary splitting it across 2 posts if it's long?  Not as a link.

sadwithoutmynelson

I am # and am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I am unrepresented with no legal background in county court procedures. I trust that the court will excuse my inexperience, if need be, and if any of the documentation is not presented correctly.

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

 

Summary Statement

I purchased the property of 33 # since in # 2015 which included two freehold parking spaces marked on the map as per my  property title deeds, Exhibit #

1. At somepoint in 2019, the management company employed an unregulated parking company, UKCPM to ensure unauthorised motorists did not park on adjacent leasehold property/parking spaces. The parking company was not contracted by me to manage my freehold spaces.
I was neither consulted nor involved in the employment of the parking company, and never agreed to allow this company on my property nor agreed to display a parking permit or abide by any terms and conditions applicable to the adjacent  leasehold spaces. 

2.    I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

 

Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidence marked Exhibits # to which I will refer

1. I received parking charge notices on # and # for this Claim. Claim number # on the mcol system is reflective of this claim where I have received parking charges for parking in my freehold spaces. I am the registered keeper on this claim and on claim number # I am classed as the defendant as I am registered as in receipt of the company car.  I have requested the claimant file these as one case so as to not waste the courts valuable time, however they have continued to file these as separate claims. . Under action estoppel (claim number #on mcol system) I request both hearings are dealt with at one hearing.

2. For the dates in question in this claim, namely # and #, it is strongly denied I was the driver of the vehicle. The car is used by multiple family members. At the time of the alleged incident, i was not insured even on this vehicle.  The claimant has offered nothing in the way of evidence as to the identity of the driver and if they wish to pursue the Defendant as driver rather than keeper, then they must produce strict proof. It is averred that the claimant has failed to do this on numerous points

3. Liability for the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety based on the well-established legal principle of primacy of contract: the freehold that exists extends to the use of the specified parking spaces and overrides any purported contract conveyed by the claimant’s insufficient, demonstrably illegible signage. My Freehold makes no assertion that a permit must be displayed to use the bay, nor that a penalty of £100 must be paid in the event of a failure to do so.

4. On this matter, i refer to the ruling of 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 alleged breach of parking terms were clear – both upon entry to the site and throughout.
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 ParkyingEye distinguished.

5. 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, with no more than 10% disagreeing, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and tenants and freeholders are unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents, including myself as a resident since # 2015.

6. i believe that any parking management company with a legitimate interest in protecting the parking rights of a residential space – which is surely their only purpose – would immediately rescind any charges issued to residents and their legitimate visitor.

7. I did, at all material times, park in accordance with the terms granted by my freehold. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding me in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the freehold. Accordingly, I deny having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. My vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per my freehold and 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.

9. Under the terms of my Title deed, there is no obligation to display a permit for my freehold spaces. On occasions permits were displayed but only for the convenience of the Claimant’s operatives, as the whole purpose of the parking permit is to distinguish vehicle of freeholder/leaseholders/tenants of the flats to vehicle that trespass or park without permission of landowner/leaseholders/tenants of the flats, and displaying the permit does not imply I accepted the permit was required as a condition on parking in the space.

10. There is no provision in any regulation contained in my freehold that requires me to contract with a third party with regards to car parking (which I have an exclusive right to) and absolutely no right to enforce anything that requires me to make payment to a third party

11. While the Management company may have the right to make reasonable changes, the Management company may not make conditions worse for the owner of the freehold as this would constitute a derogation of grant. Charging a penalty for not displaying a permit would make conditions worse for me. Therefore this is a derogation of grant and amounts to tortuous interference with the freehold by both the Management company and their agent, the Claimant.

12. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.

13. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with inflated figures, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

14. I refer also to the ruling of  PACE v Noor, as well as Link v Parkinson and Jopson v Homeguard. 

15. The continued harassment from the Claimant and their Solicitors has only served to exasperate my levels or stress and anxiety in what is a stressful time. As an owner of the freehold of these parking spots and having never signed an agreement for  a parking company to patrol my parking spot, I humbly request the courts to strike out this claim aswell as claim number ### which is active on the moneyclaim website and for the court to disallow any further claims from ukcpm for my parking spots. 

i believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. i understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth

Le_Kirk

As @Coupon-mad states, pointless adding the SAR issue in your WS, that is a matter for the ICO - make a complaint separately.   Regarding what to say in #14, suggest your read the cases you have referred to and extract some of the text that helps your case.
Here is Jopson v Homeguard: -
https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf
Here is Link v Parkinson: -
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/link-parking-and-overstone-court.html#:~:text=Of particular interest is Link,requiring a permit to park.
For Link v Parkinson, here is an extract from the judgment: -

Of particular interest is Link Parking v Ms Parkinson C7GF50J7 [2016], which concerns this building, Overstone Court. The judge examined the lease and found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

For Pace v Noor use Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon: -
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/tenancy-agreement-not-overruled-by.html

sadwithoutmynelson

Thankyou. I will add that in. Can i just put in extracts? i dont need to put in the whole case for references do i ? Thankyou. 
I have also done my summary costs. Could you confirm it looks right? i have spent a million more hours than i have wrote but didn't seem right to add a million hours 

Summary Assessment of Costs – two claims. # and #

Ordinary Costs:

Set aside fee of £255 for claim number #

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g):

Hourly Lip rate £23.72 per hour

reading Letter before Claim and N1 claim documents for claim #1   - 2 hours = £47.44

reading Letter before Claim and N1 claim documents for claim #2  - 2 hours = £47.44

replying to LBCs – 2 hours £47.44

researching how to respond to county court claims - 10 hours = £237.20

writing defences x 2 and submitting these and Directions questionnaire - 3 hours = £71.16

preparing Defendant's own witness statement and evidence - 3 hours= £71.16

Loss of leave – 1 day ( This has taken away focus from my daily work which has meant I have had to take a day of leave to give my full attention) = £189.76

Total £966.60

The total is justified and necessary and has been fairly assessed by the Defendant at this point in time (pre hearing costs) and in accordance with the rules about LiP costs that I have researched, does not exceed two thirds of the typical costs that a solicitor would have charged for handling all documents and writing defences for two separate claims