UK CPM - CCJ issued

Coupon-mad

LOL, it certainly is!  Your case is exactly the same as them all.

They cannot have £60 in fake damages as well as pretending the already extortionate £100 was calculated like in the ParkingEye v Beavis case (= not a damages model).  It can't be both.

hiphop99

Coupon-mad said:

LOL, it certainly is!  Your case is exactly the same as them all.

They cannot have £60 in fake damages as well as pretending the already extortionate £100 was calculated like in the ParkingEye v Beavis case (= not a damages model).

Cool - I will adapt your draft defense.

Will I need to mention elements such as my tenancy etc in that ?

Coupon-mad

Yes it's important. 

Read ANY other residential claim thread and you can copy & adapt what they put in about their tenancy and parking rights. 

Or copy/adapt part of the wording I used in Bexon's witness statement, in his thread I replied on today showing the wording (beware that is NOT a defence, it's a witness statement in the first person but you may find it useful later, and can adapt the bits about tenancy agreements into your defence, written in the third person).

hiphop99

Hi all - This is due in this week at some point and I have amended Coupon-mad's most recent defence according to the newbies thread.

For points 17/18, I have added the below. 

I will append the Tenancy Agreement and the approved judgement from the Southampton County Court. Do I need to add anything else?

1.     The Defendant’s tenancy agreement is appended (Annex 2) and there are no terms within the agreement requiring tenants to display a permit in order to park at the property or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of the same. A permit was provided, merely as a courtesy as far as the Defendant was informed.  The Defendant’s tenancy agreement grants the Defendant rights enjoyed by the flat's owners and The Defendant was entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property.  There was nothing in the Tenancy Agreement about paying parking charges and the Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the tenancy agreement.

 

2.     While the Defendant fully appreciates the need for parking control on private land, the Defendant does not appreciate the apparent business tactics of the Claimant, UK Car Park Management, whereby they insist people going about their daily business at home have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the small wording on unobtrusive signs. 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 tenancy agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the tenancy agreement 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.

hiphop99

Do I need to make mention of Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]?

nosferatu1001

No, you don't append you Ta in a defence. You normally append nothing to a defence, however the Southampton judgement is unique. 

hiphop99

nosferatu1001 said:

No, you don't append you Ta in a defence. You normally append nothing to a defence, however the Southampton judgement is unique. 

So I should not be sending the TA with the Defense?

Sorry not sure on your point re: Southampton - Should that be appended?

nosferatu1001

You append what the template tells you to , and nothing more. 

hiphop99

nosferatu1001 said:

You append what the template tells you to , and nothing more. 

really? ok.

Not to be difficult but why would I not attach the TA?

KeithP

Because evidence comes later - as explained in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.