County Court Defence - Review Please

RubyRhubarb

Quick summary, over a year ago relatives were dropped off at their residence, they had been told by building staff that visitors were allowed to park (parking is indicated on their tenancy agreement but land owner says this is a mistake). This is the only access point to the building for loadinig / unloading. PCN and NTK was issued. Complained to the land owner, they said I had grounds for appeal, but didn't cancel the ticket. I have an email from them saying it is permitted to temporarily load and unload in a certain bay. Also checked the land registry which indicates the land is subject to rights of way. It was dark at the time and the lighting makes it almost impossible to read any signs. I have video evidence. Anyway I sent UKPPO a letter explaining the situation but it was rejected due to “Appeals service is no longer available” with comment “parking is restricted to vehicles displaying a valid permit only”, “the vehicle was observed parked without authorisation”.
So now 1 year on and 10 letters later from various companies (UKPPO, DRP Ltd, Zenith Collections, Gladstones, BW Legal), I get a claim form from the County Court Business Centre - to which I have sent Acknowledgement of service, defend in full - via MCOL.

Here is my draft Defence, could anyone advise please?
Also, any advice on court fees involved, I'm on low income and wondering if to apply for help with court fees. Many Thanks.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked temporarily on the material date for the purpose of loading and unloading for residents of xxxxx which is permitted by the landowner - xxxxx. The vehicle was therefore “Authorised to park”
3. Further a right of way is specified in the title deads;  Title Number: xxxxx held by the Land Registry in clauses x  and x of the register.
4. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'unauthorised parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’
5. The Particulars of Claim fail to indicate the Defendant as either registered keeper or driver of the vehicle. The Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
7. Further and in the alternative, the claimant's signage is not readable due to placement, small size and insufficient lighting at night - note it was dark at said time. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle did not have a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Redx

Advice on help with fees etc listed in this latest thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here#latest

Plus check the MCOL website too

The statement of truth changed earlier this month so I suggest you checkout the latest wording

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

Le_Kirk

Read this post: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1
............... and consider using this defence as the claimant has tried to add spurious amounts.  Once you have added your own reasons why you won't be paying into paragraphs 16 & 17, post just those paragraphs (or any additional ones if required) here for critique.  When you get the go ahead send your defence by using the method outlined in the link on the second post in that thread.  It might be some time before this gets to court.  You don't pay any court fees (the claimant does) unless and until you lose the case.

RubyRhubarb

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

CC Claim form issue date:  30th March 2020

Acknowledgement of service: 9th April 2020

KeithP

RubyRhubarb said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

CC Claim form issue date:  30th March 2020

Acknowledgement of service: 9th April 2020

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th May 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Guidance on creating a Defence is also in that thread - in the first post on that thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

D_P_Dance

Read this

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

What does your lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? If not then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Tenants Acts.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

KeithP's post links to the template defence we now recommend (scroll up to the first post of his link) and you just edit in some stuff about these facts (below) and mention Jopson v Homeguard, instead of the red bits in #16 and #17 of the template defence, and you are done!

The Defendant and resident complained to the land owner, they said there were grounds for appeal and the Defendant has an email from them, saying it is permitted to temporarily load and unload.  The Defendant also checked the Land Registry which indicates the land is subject to rights of way.  It was dark at the time and the lighting makes it almost impossible to read any signs.

Then stuff about Jopson as per your first draft...

Also, any advice on court fees involved, I'm on low income and wondering if to apply for help with court fees.

There are no fees for defending a court claim.  The Claimant pays the fees.

RubyRhubarb

Thanks so much for your help, I shall do the edits and repost for a final review.

RubyRhubarb

Thanks D_P_Dance

The tenacy agreement says
"one car is permitted per property where off-road parking is provided. Additional cost for parking spaces may apply." "to park and to ensure that the Tenant's visitors park cars only in designated parking spaces and not to park on or otherwise cause or permit any obstruction to the access roads."

However the land owner said in an email
"I suggest you contact your landlord about this issue as there isn’t, and never has been, any parking available to residents of the flats" and goes on to say "The only spaces where it is permitted to temporarily load and unload are the very end ones on the sloped section of the car park."

Clearly residents need some kind of access, and this is physically the only place to park for loading and unloading. On further investigation, it seems that no one is issuing permits to residents for temporary parking to unload, which really leaves everyone open to getting a ticket.

Yes a good idea to complain to my MP, it seems these companies mostly operate on a business model of deception.

D_P_Dance

The landowner is likely to be correct.  Letting agents usually use a stock pro forma AST and it is up to the landlord to see that it is correct.  Whenever I sign an , I always ensure that it is accurate first.