Link Parking / BW Legal - OWN residential parking bay

Coupon-mad

eagle5 said:

Okay I will call for clarification. The letter I posted was titled 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (preliminary hearing)

Yes - and I am advising you to find the earlier 'Notice of Allocation' from 2021.  It cannot be right for the Claimant to be allowed to file and serve a unilateral bundle.

Redx

Coupon-mad said:

eagle5 said:

Okay I will call for clarification. The letter I posted was titled 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (preliminary hearing)

Yes - and I am advising you to find the earlier 'Notice of Allocation' from 2021.  It cannot be right for the Claimant to be allowed to file and serve a unilateral bundle.

As above , the directions should be a jointly approved bundle , between yourself and the claimant , compiled by the claimant after receiving your bundle

eagle5

Where can I look to find the notice I did not receive? 

The court has confirmed too the judge has set no directions but advised to submit documents I want the judge to look at ASAP. They said I can post to BWL or inform the judge I will hand it to them on the day at risk of BWL having an issue with this. They have also informed me BWL have submitted a bundle last week

Redx

The only place to look is your received postal letters file , nowhere else

If the court told you that , then my advice is sound , get your bundle submitted to both asap !  Quikstix

Bwl will certainly have an issue with anything submitted on the day , hence my replies

Time is short , do it anyway , because b w legal are hoping to delay matters and put you at a disadvantage

eagle5

1.           Firstly, it should be noted that my lease agreement signed XXXXX 2018 clearly states my plot, XXXX is comprised of my “Property” (exhibit XX-01) and “Allocated Parking Space” (exhibit XX-02) both viewable on Key Plan signed by myself and the other “tenant” (exhibit XX-03).

2.           Upon completing the purchase of my property and receiving my lease, there is no instruction from the Landlord to display any permit as proof of residency. The lease details how the “Allocated Parking Space” may be used and what restrictions are in place from the landlord, such as, type of vehicle. This is shown in the lease in Schedule 4, page 22 and 23, paras 16-20; Schedule 9, page 38, para 5; Schedule 11, page 48, ‘Part C Parking Costs’ (as shown in exhibit XX-04)

3.            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 Section 37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. There is a maximum number of dissenters to the ballot permitted according to the Act, which is 10%, and no such ballot has been carried out therefore, no such variation of lease can be legally enforced upon the defendant or any other leaseholder.

4.            As Leaseholders, we manage parking spaces ourselves and have no need or desire for anyone else to manage this space. There was no need for the management company to apply parking restrictions to our parking spaces, and we have not given them permission to do so. They are fully aware that we manage the space ourselves, no representative of Link Parking Limited has been given permission to enter our parking space, and any representative doing so is a trespasser. Additionally, as I own the parking space, the claimant has no right to charge me a penalty for parking in it, irrespective of the display of a permit.

5.            As a key worker during lockdown (exhibit XX-05), I did not have the option to “work from home” and due to the increased demand of staff as a result of staff shortages, I was subject to long shifts and working weeks exceeding 7 days at a time. ‘Coronavirus, a history of English lockdown laws’ published on the House of Commons website (UK Parliament), Wednesday 22nd December 20201 states England was in national lockdown between late March and June 2020. Intitally, all “non-essential” high street businesses were closed and people were ordered to stay at home, permitted to leave for essential purposes only, such as buying food or for medical reasons. (Exhibit XX-06). It is disgraceful that during a time of hardship, fear of contracting and losing my life to Coronavirus, on XXXXX 2020 at XXXXXam, the claimant trespassed to illegally place a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen of my parked car in my “allocated parking space” and then for over a year after, harass me with debt collector’s letters with increasing sums causing ongoing stress and fear.

6.            The garage shutter doors and pedestrian entry and only accessible via key fob entry into my block. The shutters were broken and remained open for around one week or less during XXXXX 2020 when the claimant issued the PCN. The shutters were dysfunctional and therefore remained open whilst a contractor was appointed to fix the fault, it was a delayed repair due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

7.            The claimant claims to regularly police the car park and also claims they do not discriminate against anybody. Since learning of my rights whilst preparing my defence and submitting it on XXXXX 2021, I have stopped displaying any permit on my windscreen. In addition, I have changed my vehicle and changed my occupation where I now work from home full-time and never use my car for the purpose of travelling and/or to work – I have not received any PCN since XXXXX 2021 which shows the lack of integrity on behalf of the Claimant in their response the IAS appeal (exhibit XX-07).

8.            The Claimant has failed to provide any proof of contract between themselves and the Landlord or managing agent making their presence on the private property grounds an action of trespassing.

9.            As an immediate response to the PCN issued by the claimant, before being aware of my leaseholder rights, I submitted an appeal XXXX 2020 which in turn gave the claimant my personal identifying details that they then passed on, without my permission, to a third party for debt collection.

10.         The appeal was rejected on XXXXX 2020 and I was then directed by the claimant to use the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) to appeal their decision to not cancel the issued PCN. Again, I was none the wiser and did not know how to defend myself in this telephone call. Ultimately, the representative ruled in favour of the claimant and stated they are not in power to advise.

11.         Since the issue of this false PCN I have had countless sleepless nights and my mental health has been impacted as I have felt drained stressing about this PCN which was wrongfully enforced.

12.            Upon completing my defence for the Small Claims Track, I noticed a number of discrepancies and deceit the claimant has subjected this claim on. For example, the signage displayed by the claimant, Link Parking Limited does not contain any ‘location code’ (exhibit XX-08) yet the PCN issued by the claimant has a location code of ‘XXXXXX’ (exhibit XX-09). The claimant has issued their PCN on the basis of a sign which holds no location code on any ‘warning’ display boards both inside the block car park and outside the building block questioning the authenticity of the photo they submitted as evidence in their PCN. For the purpose of this statement, I have included additional photos of signage displayed in other areas inside and outside of the building block taken on 5th February 2022 (exhibit XX-10).

 13.            In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

Abuse of process – the quantum

14.     In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-11). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

15.    After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

16.         This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding £60 in costs over and above the purpose of the 'parking charge' to the global sum claimed is unrecoverable, due to the POFA at 4(5), the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (exhibit - XX-12) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10 and 14. There is no grounds for a claim for breach of contract as no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of me parking in my own allocated parking space.

17.         Furthermore, the case of ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply to my case. In ParkingEye, the court ruled that ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists in order to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the users of the retail outlet. In my case, I am parking in my own allocated parking space which is allocated to me and my property only. Therefore, there are no other legitimate being harmed by my parking in my own allocated parking bay, as nobody else is allowed to park there. Moreover, the penalty charge in Beavis was allowed by the Court because it was not considered 'unconscionable', however in my case I would argue that being charged for parking in a parking space that I have exclusive rights over and have purchased as part of my property would be considered unconscionable.

18.         Not drawing onerous terms to the attention of a consumer breaches Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' and in addition the global sum on the particulars of claim is unfair under the CRA. Consumer notices are never exempt from the test of fairness and the court has a duty under s71 of the CRA to consider the terms and the signs to identify the breaches of the
CRA. Not only is the added vague sum not stated on the notices at all, but the official CMA guidance to the CRA covers this and makes it clear that words like 'indemnity' are objectionable in themselves and any term trying to allow a trader to recover costs twice would (of course) be void, even if the added sum was on the signs.

My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

19.         Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

CPR 44.11 – further costs

20.         As a litigant-in-person I have had to spend considerable time researching the law online, attempting to correctly interpret the legal terminology, preparing my defence and preparing my witness statement. On top of this, due to the threatening and harassing language of the Claimant’s automated letter chain (behaviour akin to that acknowledged by Lord Hunt of Wirral – “Highly undesirable practices in the private parking industry range from threatening letters sent to motorists, poor signage in car parks and aggressive debt collection practices”.) I have had to endure the emotional strain of regularly reassuring my partner of our safety and of the integrity of our credit records.

21.         Therefore, I am appending with this bundle a fully detailed costs assessment (exhibit XX-13) which covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11). In support of that argument, I first draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant was aware (exhibits XX-01 and XX-03) that my lease agreement details ownership of the private bay where I am entitled to park my own personal vehicle, without any such permit displayed. Given this proof was available and within the Claimant’s expertise, and the Claimant could have avoided this claim.

22.         Secondly, given the specificity of the conclusions of Judges Jackson and Hickinbottom, and their direct relevance to this Claim, the Claimant’s business model and that of the Claimant’s legal representation, pursuit of the inflated sum including double recovery in full knowledge of such conclusions is clearly vexatious.

Tonight I am printing, adding to ring binders and submitting to court tomorrow morning and sending a copy to the solicitor too as the court advised earlier today. 

Redx

Don't forget the statement of truth at the bottom , before signing it

No need to print , sign and scan , just add a digital signature

eagle5

Redx said:

Don't forget the statement of truth at the bottom , before signing it

No need to print , sign and scan , just add a digital signature

Yes I have added statement of truth and costs too - I was going to wet ink sign and copy x3? I will lose more time trying to add a digital image of my signature lol 

Redx

eagle5 said:

Redx said:

Don't forget the statement of truth at the bottom , before signing it

No need to print , sign and scan , just add a digital signature

Yes I have added statement of truth and costs too - I was going to wet ink sign and copy x3? I will lose more time trying to add a digital image of my signature lol 

Lol , just take a picture of your signature , black pen on white paper ( or scan it )

Add to document , easy peasy 😁😁👍👍

eagle5

Any more comments on my WS? 

Coupon-mad

Add in quotes from yesterday's newly published statutory Code of Practice.  You will have seen bargepole's thread about it!

Added debt recovery 'costs' are banned

There is also a section warning parking operators not to impose obligations (permit schemes) that interfere with or seek to 'qualify' parking rights/easements already in a resident's lease.

Add both.  The strongest form of words about banning debt recovery and explanation as to why, is in the DLUHC's Response to the Technical Public Consultation on Debt Recovery and Parking Charge levels.