Vehicle Control Services PCN in a residential car park

Coupon-mad

I'd try to get the signature and date up onto the defence last page by amalgamating 37, 38 and 39 into one shorter point.  I always feel that the signature part looks odd as a page on its own - rather like the dodgy lease in the Lewes case, it looks suspiciously separate.

MoneySavingPest

Thanks for all the comments.
One thing I have realised is that I don't think I can run the primacy of a pre-existing right under a lease defence, per Jopson. The person driving my car on the day was a visitor to a person with a lease parking in a communal Visitor's Space (rather than a resident's space). Unfortunately, although the lease mentions that the leaseholder has rights to park in the parking space allocated to the flat, it makes no mention of Visitor Spaces, so the lease doesn't give any pre-existing rights over Visitor Spaces.

A question: if the leaseholder helps me out by providing some evidence, what's the scope for rebound on him/her as the Court case progresses? Unfortunately the background on this is that the leaseholder was unwell at the time of the PCN (a factor in how the permit didn't get displayed), and has since become really seriously ill (Stage IV cancer). The leaseholder is willing to help me out with some documentary evidence (basically medical letters showing the fact of illness at the time of the PCN and now), as the leaseholder thinks the whole PCN situation is ridiculous, but does not want to get further involved with having to give evidence in person, provide a witness statement etc as the leaseholder needs to avoid stress where possible. I don't think there is any risk of this as I understand neither the PPC nor the County Court can call witnesses to give evidence, but if there is any risk of the leaseholder getting seriously embroiled I would rather leave that bit of the defence out to save the leaseholder hassle.

I am not sure legally how much the leaseholder's evidence actually helps me - as a general factual background, the fact the driver of my car was parking with the approval of a leaseholder might make the Court more disposed to view my case more favorably. I've looked at frustration of contract (leaseholder was too unwell to give the driver a permit), but it seems unless the leaseholder was actually unconscious or dead frustration wouldn't apply. I think the best argument is to add a further defence that, even if the PPC can prove a general authority to operate on the land, they cannot prove authority to pursue a genuine visitor to an unwell resident as that was not the intention of the landowner when they agreed whatever contract they have with the PPC for the efficient management of resident parking spaces (if they have one) - the PPC is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

D_P_Dance

...  so the lease doesn't give any pre-existing rights over Visitor Spaces.

I think that you are wrong, but this would be a matter for a judge to  decide imo.  Have you complained to your MP?

Fruitcake

What a lease doesn't say about parking, permits, PCNs, and court claims etcetera is just as important as to what it does say.
If a tenant's lease/AST has no restrictions on visitor parking, then that still has primacy of contract over anything a third party scammer says.

MoneySavingPest

Following on from my post earlier today, a further version of the defence attached.
I have added a variation on the landowner authority defence specifically about pursuing visitors to unwell residents. Not sure it actually adds much legally, but look forward to the PPC trying to argue it in court once the medical evidence is known to the judge!
Thanks for all the help.

MoneySavingPest said:

Thanks for all the comments.
One thing I have realised is that I don't think I can run the primacy of a pre-existing right under a lease defence, per Jopson. The person driving my car on the day was a visitor to a person with a lease parking in a communal Visitor's Space (rather than a resident's space). Unfortunately, although the lease mentions that the leaseholder has rights to park in the parking space allocated to the flat, it makes no mention of Visitor Spaces, so the lease doesn't give any pre-existing rights over Visitor Spaces.

A question: if the leaseholder helps me out by providing some evidence, what's the scope for rebound on him/her as the Court case progresses? Unfortunately the background on this is that the leaseholder was unwell at the time of the PCN (a factor in how the permit didn't get displayed), and has since become really seriously ill (Stage IV cancer). The leaseholder is willing to help me out with some documentary evidence (basically medical letters showing the fact of illness at the time of the PCN and now), as the leaseholder thinks the whole PCN situation is ridiculous, but does not want to get further involved with having to give evidence in person, provide a witness statement etc as the leaseholder needs to avoid stress where possible. I don't think there is any risk of this as I understand neither the PPC nor the County Court can call witnesses to give evidence, but if there is any risk of the leaseholder getting seriously embroiled I would rather leave that bit of the defence out to save the leaseholder hassle.

I am not sure legally how much the leaseholder's evidence actually helps me - as a general factual background, the fact the driver of my car was parking with the approval of a leaseholder might make the Court more disposed to view my case more favorably. I've looked at frustration of contract (leaseholder was too unwell to give the driver a permit), but it seems unless the leaseholder was actually unconscious or dead frustration wouldn't apply. I think the best argument is to add a further defence that, even if the PPC can prove a general authority to operate on the land, they cannot prove authority to pursue a genuine visitor to an unwell resident as that was not the intention of the landowner when they agreed whatever contract they have with the PPC for the efficient management of resident parking spaces (if they have one) - the PPC is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

MoneySavingPest

Fruitcake said:

What a lease doesn't say about parking, permits, PCNs, and court claims etcetera is just as important as to what it does say.
If a tenant's lease/AST has no restrictions on visitor parking, then that still has primacy of contract over anything a third party scammer says.

There is no mention of visitor parking in the lease, just what the leaseholder can do with his or her car in the space allocated to the flat. 
Not sure primacy of contract works, unless the contract gives the specific right. The visitor parking space in question is off the road running through the estate - a bit like a lay-by. The road must be a public road, as there are no restrictions on traffic entering or leaving it from the town centre. Since the visitor space was obviously put in as part of the development, I assume that that exact bit of land must be owned by the developer and is therefore private. So unless you are given a specific right to do so (and the lease rather fails me on that), I don't think you have any right to park on it (and you might get sued for trespass if you do). Might be true that the PPC also has no right to operate on it, but that's the point about landowner authority which I've kept in.

DoaM

Is the road adopted by the council? Who pays to maintain the road and pavements? If the council pays for both then the visitor spaces may "belong" to the council and as such are not relevant land for the PPC to by managing.

Coupon-mad

A question: if the leaseholder helps me out by providing some evidence, what's the scope for rebound on him/her as the Court case progresses? 

There is no risk of them being called as a witness or hearing anything more.  Your defence is very thorough!

MoneySavingPest

Now had the Intention to Proceed letter from the claimant, a copy of their completed Directions Questionnaire, and also a Directions Questionnaire of my own to fill out from the court.
Does anyone know if it is possible to submit the completed DQ via e-mail? I know how to fill it out based on other posts, and have got a softcopy from the Court Service website, but there doesn't seem to be any e-mail submission option.
Bit painful to do two hardcopies (one for the claimant, one for the court), and then arrange posting by recorded delivery, though I will obviously do it if there is no other way.

Le_Kirk

MoneySavingPest said:

Now had the Intention to Proceed letter from the claimant, a copy of their completed Directions Questionnaire, and also a Directions Questionnaire of my own to fill out from the court.
Does anyone know if it is possible to submit the completed DQ via e-mail? I know how to fill it out based on other posts, and have got a softcopy from the Court Service website, but there doesn't seem to be any e-mail submission option.
Bit painful to do two hardcopies (one for the claimant, one for the court), and then arrange posting by recorded delivery, though I will obviously do it if there is no other way.

Don't post anything recorded/signed for delivery because if the recipient refuses to accept it, they have absolute proof of non delivery - not what you want!  Send it by e-mail, inline with the advice in the NEWBIE sticky.  If you look you will also find the e-mail address - the same address where you sent your defence!