County Court Claim Form

Redx

You may be able to change the DVLA details online , a new service due to covid

So check online first , snail mail is a last resort

The middle name correction makes no difference to the court case

Erfan1135

Redx said:

You may be able to change the DVLA details online , a new service due to covid

I have just checked, I only can do that online for the address but if its the name as well I must do it by post,
I will call them tomorrow to ask them if there's anything else they can do about it.
Thank you tho.

Coupon-mad

Erfan1135 said:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 01/2018 to 09/2018. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that 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.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘XXXX’. The Defendant has, since 30/09/2015, lived with his parents who held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. 33 at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The outside car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. The defendant father owns a vehicle and uses the specific bay to park his vehicle. The bay No. 34 occupied by the defendant on several occasions and it had been authorised by the neighbour and who held legal title under the terms of a lease and did not own a vehicle to use (consent has been gained).  

5. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, there are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.


6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a a private nuisance to residents.

8.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £1185.41, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

12. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

12.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

16.   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

17.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

The above isn't based upon the template defence at the top of the forum. 

However, it is based on defence wording by @bargepole and is very specific to residential defences so with some editing, it looks like it will do the job.  But you haven't reflected this fact in the defence (that the car was either in the Defendant's father's bay or in an adjacent bay with the authorisation of the resident whose bay it is):

So, first of all, I do not know if I have been charged because not showing the permit or not parking in my own space as I park my vehicle at my neighbour's space as they do not have a car themselves and allow me to use their. have to mention that their consent has been gained verbally and I can ask them to put in writing as they are happy to do so.

If you want to attend the CAB meeting (virtual I assume) do take it with a pinch of salt and tell us what the advisor says.  We despair, but we want to know what rubbish they are currently telling people with court claims.

Erfan1135

I will take your advice on board and get back to all once I have an update. 

Coupon-mad said:

  But you haven't reflected this fact in the defence (that the car was either in the Defendant's father's bay or in an adjacent bay with the authorisation of the resident whose bay it is):

4. The outside car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. The defendant father owns a vehicle and uses the specific bay to park his vehicle. The bay No. 34 occupied by the defendant on several occasions and it had been authorised by the neighbour and who held legal title under the terms of a lease and did not own a vehicle to use (consent has been gained).  
Do i need to be more specific?

So, first of all, I do not know if I have been charged because not showing the permit or not parking in my own space as I park my vehicle at my neighbour's space as they do not have a car themselves and allow me to use their. have to mention that their consent has been gained verbally and I can ask them to put in writing as they are happy to do so.

If you want to attend the CAB meeting (virtual I assume) do take it with a pinch of salt and tell us what the advisor says.  We despair, but we want to know what rubbish they are currently telling people with court claims.

Do you mean the meeting after submitting the defence right? Cause I will deffo will

Erfan1135

 I had a conversation with one of my neighbour and apparently, they are all been ignoring letters and not got any claim forms ever so I seem to be the unluckiest one. 
The same neighbour wrote an appeal to them back in 2017 and got rejected and that's why he did not bother following it up, however, I have got the reply email by them which points out a few stuff that I would highly think they still will use.
The reason for receiving tickets was not displaying a valid parking permit (which I assume it is for me too).
Their response was:

---When parking at xxxx the driver of this vehicle agreed to pay a Parking Charge of

£100 if they did not park in accordance with the terms printed on the contractual warning

signs.

• The contractual warning signs in place state: Permit Holders Only. A valid permit must be

displayed at all times. This vehicle was parked in contravention of this term of the

contractual warning signs.

• At the time this vehicle was issued with a PCN no valid permit was on display.

• There are signs displaying the terms and conditions for parking on-site at regular intervals

throughout this site. Signage can clearly be seen in the images linked below.

• The parking of this vehicle at this location was therefore unauthorised and this charge was

issued correctly.

• Within the head lease for all properties at this development it is stated that parking is

offered as long as the conditions of the current parking scheme are met, your vehicle was

not parked within the conditions of the parking scheme. (I am clearly not sure what lease they are talking about cause our lease does not mention such a thing.)

• This parking bay is within a communal area on private land and is not a part of the legal

demise of the property.

I will be going to my landlord agency and try to put pressure on them to do something, if not you all think getting a letter from them stating that they do not have any sort of agreement with scammers would be a good idea for WS form?

Erfan1135

I have also submitted the SAR and them asking about what exact reason I have received tickets for 7 months and 13 days? (The date mentioned on the claim form).
the response: 

Before I can continue with your request, I need you to confirm your identity by completing the attached form.

 Can you please narrow down what information you specifically require. If you aren’t able to narrow this information down, regrettably this will incur an extension and maybe an administration fee as currently your request is excessive.

 To be of assistance, if you require all images/ evidence of the PCN affixed to your windscreen then please state that, if it’s a copy of the Notice to Keeper letters, please state that. This process will get the information you seek to you as quickly as possible.

And the form is asking me to upload proof of ID and address,  Can I go with this and provide them with such details so I can rule out the exact reason for their claim (the pics will show if it is my neighbour bay) which will help me to make my defence focused on one factor?

Le_Kirk

You should only need to attach a scan of your V5C and/or a scan of the PCN or  LBC that you received from them. No passport or driving licence.  You are only due (under GDPR) YOUR data, so, for example, photos of a sign in the car park is not your data whereas a photo of your car is.

Erfan1135

Fruitcake said:

Have you established who employed the scammers? That is to whom you should be complaining, asking about the ballot in accordance with the Landlord and Tenants Act 1987 telling them to get the charge/court claim cancelled, and telling them if they don't you will require them to attend court as a witness to explain to the judge why they have changed your (parents') tenancy agreement and that of the neighbour without complying with the law.

Update on this:
My landlord agency is unaware of a parking contact on "Head lease" or anything to do with these people, he just called those scammers but it is just like they buried their head in the sand and keep saying the same non-sense stuff about the private car park. I have asked my landlord agency to put these into the writing that my dad as a tenant has been living at xxx location since 2015 and them as a landlord agency have never been informed of the parking criteria or such things. from there I can use my V5C to demonstrate that I do live with my parents. 
The only thing that I have doubt about is if they come up with me parking in my neighbour's bay, would I get away with his written consent? his landlord is different than mine and I can't force him to give his lease agreement to me to get a copy if he doesn't want to (He can't speak properly so I have to get one my mate who speaks the same language as him to speak to him some day next week.)

Coupon-mad

The only thing that I have doubt about is if they come up with me parking in my neighbour's bay, would I get away with his written consent? 

''Get away with''?  It;s not about you getting away with excuses, this will be a defence and yes it has merit to show a witness statement confirming you were permitted to park.  You had consent of the resident and you need to show it as part of your evidence.

Erfan1135

Update on these: 
 Coupon-mad said:

it has merit to show a witness statement confirming you were permitted to park.  You had consent of the resident and you need to show it as part of your evidence.

Got a written consent from my neighbour that he allowed me all to park at his bay since the day he came to here.
Coupon-mad said:

If you want to attend the CAB meeting (virtual I assume) do take it with a pinch of salt and tell us what the advisor says.  We despair, but we want to know what rubbish they are currently telling people with court claims.

Just spoke to CAB, the advisor was basically explaining about the consequences of me defending and all sorts. He was just explaining all the steps (everything on newbies) and said he will send me an advice pack about how to file a defence as well. 
He was very keen on ticking mediation box once I receive the questionnaire (as Coupon-mad mentioned). He was concerned about the date of breaches because the exact words are: "Breaches occurred on 05/01/2018 to 10/09/2018. He mentioned that It must have been addressed exactly and not just give a period of time. Also mentioned it is good to seek legal advice as the amount they are claiming is high.


 Le_Kirk said:

You should only need to attach a scan of your V5C and/or a scan of the PCN or  LBC that you received from them. No passport or driving licence.  You are only due (under GDPR) YOUR data, so, for example, photos of a sign in the car park is not your data whereas a photo of your car is.

I have sent the form up and just attached a scan of my V5C and claim form.