Received a N1SDT Form from County Court Business Centre - for parking at my own home on private land

Redx

I assume you mean the new management company , not parking company

mattp87

Yes I do, apologies. They have said they would handle it very differently. The previous management company was not easy to deal with. Hence why the buggered off. They refused my SAR as well. They said to contact the new management company. Lovely!

Umkomaas

mattp87 said:

Yes I do, apologies. They have said they would handle it very differently. The previous management company was not easy to deal with. Hence why the buggered off. They refused my SAR as well. They said to contact the new management company. Lovely!

Give them one final chance - 7-day deadline - in writing. Then, if no (or negative) response, report them to the ICO. Be prepared to carry out your threat. 

Coupon-mad

For goodness sake read the TEMPLATE DEFENCE accouncement / sticky thread!

mattp87

Coupon-mad said:

For goodness sake read the TEMPLATE DEFENCE accouncement / sticky thread!

I will post it in here if that's ok and then I will follow previous instructions if it does fit the bill in terms of defence. Forgive me, but reading through ALL of the posts and ALL of the data, I have never had to do this before and again, I appreciate the help given even to this stage. You are all massively experienced here and I'm trying to do this the right way.

Umkomaas

Have you written to the PPC requiring them to deal with your SAR within 7 days?

Fruitcake

As far as the template defence is concerned, you only need to amend paragraphs 17 and 18, so please don't post the rest of the already written defence.
If you need to add anything different having personalised those two paragraphs, then just it as an additional paragraph(s), but remember to renumber the rest of the template before you submit it.
The guide to court written by bargepole in the second post of the NEWBIES will tell you what to do and when with screenshots of the government, court, and MCOL pages so you know what to fill in and when.
Put dates in your diary in advance of the submission dates. You have more work to do once you have done your defence.

Please will you clarify whether or not you own the parking space, or whether one is allocated to you but not owned by you? Either way, is the space shown on your ownership/lease documents and/or numbered?

If you own the space, it should be shown on the Land Registry entry which I know from experience will show something as small as a single parking space. A copy of the Land Registry entry only costs a few quid for a specific address. If you need to show the individual space, you may need to print a map, draw round the space, and submit that to the Land Registry. It costs a few quid more because it requires a manual search by the Land Registry personnel as opposed to an electronic search.

nosferatu1001

If the previous management company are refusing to deal with your SAR, sue them.
Once the deadline expires, file a complaint with the ICO and send the MC a letter before action giving them 14 days to supply the data they must supply, or a payment of £500 for breach of the DPA2018, or you will issue a claim without further notice for damages due to breach of the DPA2018. 
If you have an individual who has refused this, point out that that individual is personally liable for breach of the DPA.

mattp87

Thank you for all the help.
I am now producing the defence and readying it to be emailed and done in the correct format as previously given to me. 
---
Having read the below: -
Case No.: E4GF9T29 – UK Car Park Management Ltd. -v- Miss C, before District Judge Trigg

Claimant represented by Mr Ajike, solicitors’ agent
Defendant attended in person, with lay representative Mr Bargepole

Order: Claim dismissed, Claimant to pay Defendant’s witness costs of £105.40 within 21 days.

---

Miss C had been a leaseholder of the flat at New Central, Woking, since 2011, and UKCPM were brought in to operate a permit scheme in 2013. The underground car park can only be accessed by means of a key fob, issued to all residents. Some spaces are numbered, and allocated to specific flats, while the rest are unmarked, and available on a first come, first served basis. She had parked in one of these.

Her lease grants her a right to park, subject to vehicles being taxed and roadworthy, with no commercial vehicles, caravans or trailers permitted.

The Claimant’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.

Our case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. We relied on Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson. Alternatively, the Claimant’s signage stated ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and she was de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob.

The DJ was well up to speed on all these issues, having heard many similar cases previously, and she ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable. It was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of her lease. If she had been parking in someone else’s marked bay, or blocking an exit, the Claimant may have an arguable case, but in this case they didn’t. The sign also did not create any contractual liability, so the claim must fail.

For Mr Deep's benefit, we did apply for further costs for unreasonable behaviour, but the DJ ruled that was a high threshold which had not been met in this case, although she did comment that the WS filed by Gladstones was 'very poor'.
---------------
This sounds just like mine.
I have obtained my land reg documents - I have obtained my title deeds - I am ready. 
However, I am confused as to what I use for my defence? My points are straight forward to add. I'm just not sure which passage of text to use and edit?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1 - Understood, seems straight forward.
Do I use DS90's post - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5559809/uk-cpm-pcn-received/p1 ?
This is my scenario down to a T - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/tenancy-agreement-not-overruled-by.html 
****
Here are some cases won or in progress which should help you with ideas as to what to put in as 'case specific facts' at #16 or #17 of the template defence, if your case is not a ParkingEye one:

Here is a defence about a car which was authorised by an employer to be unloading in a gated business complex:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71643736#Comment_71643736"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5485681">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5485681#159

If your case is about YOUR OWN SPACE or parking in a residents' car park as a legit visitor, read THIS from the parking Prankster. Also consider a counter-claim and/or LBC to the site Managing Agent:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/residential-ticket-only-cancelled-after.html

Here is a residential defence, by Johnersh, who is a solicitor:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72977032#Comment_72977032"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74708527#Comment_74708527">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74708527#Comment_74708527"nofollow" href="http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107768&st=80&p=1311428!!!entry1311428">http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107768&st=80&p=1311428!!!entry1311428

Here is one of many residential cases won. This report by bargepole mentions the case transcripts that might help (find them hosted by the Parking Prankster in his CASE LAW pages on his website):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927351/court-report-guildford-another-ukcpm-claim-bites-the-dust



This is the post I was going to amend into my own, changing some longer parts to fit my notes above RE: living there, owning property there and having an at least 1 allocated bay by lease which overrides any third party contract parking management. 

[FONT=&quot]Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a <insert colour> <insert make> <insert model> motor vehicle registration number AB12 CDE on <insert date> at <insert location> that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Claimant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.

6. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]10. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a “relevant obligation” existed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]11. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a “relevant obligation” the court is invited to strike the matter out.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]12. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgment in Elliott –v- Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]13. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]14. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty (it was a criminal matter) on a surfeit of evidence including forensic evidence of being the driver at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]15. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]16. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]17. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine –v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]18. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]19. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]20. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]21. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye –v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]22. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]23. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim[/FONT]
I will include the statement of truth.

Is this right?
I will be looking at this tonight and early morning and ensuring my deadline is met in the manner you have already given me.

Again, thank you for your help. 

KeithP

Have you thought about using the already written for you Defence template linked from the NEWBIES thread?

 On 25 July at 5:36PM Coupon-mad wrote:

Coupon-mad said:

For goodness sake read the TEMPLATE DEFENCE accouncement / sticky thread!