UKPC SCS Law County Court Claim Form Received

jagldn

Coupon-mad said:

You still haven't said why the car parked there - basic stuff - were the family residents at the site?

I am trying to establish if the driver was trespassing or was a resident?  Huge difference.

Yes - Residents.

nosferatu1001

What did their lease / AST / whatever agreemebnt say about parking. 
OR what DOESNT it say, ie need to display permits.
Search multiple threads for what we mean. 

D_P_Dance

Read some "own space" posts where "primacy of contract" is mentioned.

https://www.google.com/search?q=primacy+of+contract+parking&oq=Primacy+of+contract+parking&aqs=chrome.0.0.13657j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Coupon-mad

jagldn said:

Coupon-mad said:

You still haven't said why the car parked there - basic stuff - were the family residents at the site?

I am trying to establish if the driver was trespassing or was a resident?  Huge difference.

Yes - Residents.

This is massively different than a trespasser scenario and covered in thousands of 'own space' threads you can copy from.  Make it really specific to the fact the family were residents and what rights to park they enjoyed under their lease or tenancy, or if none, then state that the agreement was silent about any obligations to pay additional charges to park, or observe additional bolt-on contracts from a third party parking firm.

There is also a good article here by the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

But read any of the zillions of residential parking threads at the same stage as you.  I think the NEWBIES thread has an example of wording specific to a residential car park as well (but I may have removed it when we went for the template defence instead, I can't recall but take a look).

Parking in an accessible bay when disabled is arguably perfectly OK even if the Blue Badge slips or is forgotten.  The MHCLG seems to agree, going by the appeals charter they are working on as part of the new statutory Code of Practice that was published last Sept/Oct - it just talks about evidence of disability need.  The point being, if a BB has expired and needs renewing, or if a person is only recently diagnosed, they are still disabled.   Still have the legal right and need to use an accessibility provision made available to people with protected characteristics. 

Just because adopting the BB scheme makes it 'easier' operationally for parking firms, does not make it lawful to insist on a BB alone as the only indicator of disability need and to refuse retrospective requests for 'reasonable adjustments' would appear to break the law.