LBC from DCB Legal instructed by Met for residential multiple fines

parkingfinehelp1

Umkomaas said:

to unload goods/ Young children to their demise

Lucky it's just parking charges you're up against! 😄

Loool told you I need help with this! If I win it will be a miracle 🤣

parkingfinehelp1

parkingfinehelp1 said:

Coupon-mad said:

The word 'demise' sounds very odd in that sentence.  Bumping them off?!

The residential defences from parking prankster doesn't apply to my case as nothing in my lease about parking.

Yes they do apply and most tenancies are silent about parking regimes.

Are you a leasehold flat owner or a tenant?

I'm a leaseholder. I've just read my lease again for the 10000000 time. There is this clause 'the lesser may at any time during this term in the interest of good management impose regulations of general applications regarding the building including gardens and grounds thereof as it may reasonably think fit, and shall have the power to waive, revoke , amend or add to the restrictions.'

The only thing mentioned on the lease in regards to parking is 'the lessee shall not park or permit any of its visitors to park any car, van or other vehicles within the curtilage of the building or the area at the rear shown edged green on the plan' 
But I'm guessing with the clause above stating that they can impose restrictions is there any point in using as a defence?  

Coupon-mad

Yes because you aren't up against the sharpest tools in the box!  Parking firms and their bulk legals really aren't that bright, in the main, IMHO.

Use all the weapons you can in your defence.

KeithP

On Tuesday I asked...

KeithP said:

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

parkingfinehelp1

KeithP said:

On Tuesday I asked...

KeithP said:

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

Issue Date is the 9th Jan

KeithP

parkingfinehelp1 said:

KeithP said:

On Tuesday I asked...

KeithP said:

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

Issue Date is the 9th Jan

If you haven't done so already, you have until 4pm tomorrow to file an Acknowledgment of Service and gain an extra fourteen days to file a Defence.

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread. 
Failure to file an Acknowledgment of Service by 4pm tomorrow means that you Defence filing deadline becomes 4pm tomorrow.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th February 2024 to file your Defence.
That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

parkingfinehelp1 said:

KeithP said:

On Tuesday I asked...

KeithP said:

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

Issue Date is the 9th Jan

Have you done the AOS now? Really easy;
step by step page images are in a Dropbox link in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

parkingfinehelp1

Yes filed the aos and now drafted my defence. Thanks all. I've taken bits of other defences found on this site and used the template from newbies thread 

3. It is admitted that on the material dates of the PCN’s, the defendants vehicle was almost certainly identified in the car park of Longfield House because this was the defendant’s home.

On occasion, when necessary, the defendant uses the car park on which his building stands, to unload goods / small children to his property as the defendant is the owner of a Leasehold flat on the Third floor of Longfield House which he purchased in 2015.

3.1. The defendant denies parking and only ever stopped to offload, briefly, causing no

obstruction, in an empty, unused parking bay.

3.2. As per the defendants lease, it gives full rights and liberty at all times to gain access to the building. Maintaining the resident’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by lurking ex wheel clampers for normal life like necessities like stopping to unload groceries, building materials, the Defendants young children etc. Clearly there is no legitimate interest supporting these circumstances and also no

reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for nearly 6 years hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations.

3.3. The defendant avers that the operators signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within their lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgements on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson Vs Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir

Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed Vs Plustrade Ltd (2001)

4. Accordingly it is denied that

(i) There is any agreement between the Defendant and or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant

(ii) the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss

(iii) the Claimant has suffered or incurred any ‘damages or indemnity costs if applicable’ as

vaguely stated in the template POC

5. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.1. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government............

parkingfinehelp1

Sorry format is a bit all over the place from where I copied and pasted . 

KeithP

parkingfinehelp1 said:

Yes filed the aos and now drafted my defence.

But did you file the Acknowledgment of Service before 30th January?