Please Help - 3 County Court Claims covering 11 Parking Control Management resi parking tickets

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

fhpatel said:

Coupon-mad said:

Forget #3 because that was removed by the Supreme Court in their supposed infinite wisdom in 2015 when they upheld an incentivised penalty issuing model as ‘fair’. 

Copy the template defence and add your facts. For example, the ones that are 82 mins apart, where’s the evidence that the car wasn’t there to unload then left then returned? Just asking... 

The template defence covers all 4 of your points but you just need to add context to tell the Judge you were a tenant and that the agreement was silent about charges for parking...assuming that’s true.

Also do you still have a copy of, or can you get, your tenancy agreement and check what it says about peaceful enjoyment and parking?  The terms of your tenancy agreement are the only terms you are bound by and as a resident you have primacy of contract.

Thank you very much Coupon-mad. I will use the defence template as you suggest, and update with the particulars in my case. Shall I post it here once I've drafted it, in case you or any others have any feedback/ suggestions?

Re: the ticket that is 82 mins apart - it is possible, as I believe I was loading and unloading that day, however the 2 sets of photos show that the car was parked in precisely the same location. I think it would be considered unlikely that the car had been moved between the 2 sets of photos.

Re: the lease agreement, I have just re-read it. Here is what it says about parking and peaceful enjoyment:
"Not to leave or park (other than by parking a private motor car or motor cycle or bicycle in the car park) on any part of the estate any motor vehicle motor cycle bicycle or other vehicle and to observe all regulations made from time to time by the Landlord relating to the parking of vehicles (and the Tenant acknowledges the right of the Landlord or its agents to apply wheel clamps to vehicles parked in contravention of such regulations and to charge a fee for removal)"

"Quiet enjoyment
That the Tenant paying the Rents and complying with its other obligations under this Lease may peaceably hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interruption by the Landlord or any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for it"

I don't think there's much for us to work with there, what do you think?  

Certainly show us your draft but only what you add as facts, not the whole template defence for us yet again, please!  We’ve seen it, and I wrote it! 

Your first clause there isn’t great but it is out of date in law because private wheel clamping was banned in 2012, so in effect that section is an unlawful threat that (arguably) can be disregarded by tenants after 2012.  The second clause is very useful and you can quote that in your defence. 

How did you know you can only stop for 30 mins in a visitor bay if that’s not in the tenancy agreement.  Surely genuine visitors coming to see you were not only allowed to park for half an hour? So how do you know residents were held to that short time, was that stipulated in the ‘rules’ PCM imposed in a letter introducing permits?

I hope you’ve managed to find a home where no PPC infests now, because they blight estates and ruin people’s peace of mind.  Ex-clamper thugs have no place in residential car parks IMHO.

Thank you. I will build those elements into my defence and I will post on here for you to review. I won't copy and paste the whole thing then, given you wrote it!

I knew about the rules because the managing agent sent an email a few months ago (prior to these tickets) reminding all residents about the 30 minute rules. I believe they may have also posted letters too.
Visitors are allowed to use VP bays for up to 4 hours, after they are given digital permits via the concierge.

I fully agree on private parking companies ruining lives on estates. The stress of being hounded and harassed by them in the place I pay money to live in peace, was definitely one of the contributing factors to me moving on. I am now living on a normal road and high is way less stress 

fazzyp1000

By the way does anyone have any insight into why they might only be going after me for 4 tickets rather than the 10+ they have on me?
Should I interpret it as they are only going to come after me for these 4, or to the contrary, might this be the start and then they'll pursue me for the rest later if they win with these?

Coupon-mad

Yes, you are likely to get another claim. They only went for 4 because some PPCs don’t bother to carry out any diligence to make sure they advance their entire case at once.  

They don’t care.   This business model works for them and it’s mega lucrative.  Consumer rights and interests don’t figure in their greedy pursuit of a stupid amount of money for providing no service to you whatsoever.

They’ve just handed over the ones they were ‘ready’ to intimidate you with and will file a separate claim when they get round to the rest.  But then you have an extra defence point to a near-duplicate 2nd claim, as seen in all the threads you find when you search Henderson defence.

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, you are likely to get another claim. They only went for 4 because some PPCs don’t bother to carry out any diligence to make sure they advance their entire case at once.  

They don’t care.   This business model works for them and it’s mega lucrative.  Consumer rights and interests don’t figure in their greedy pursuit of a stupid amount of money for providing no service to you whatsoever.

They’ve just handed over the ones they were ‘ready’ to intimidate you with and will file a separate claim when they get round to the rest.  But then you have an extra defence point to a near-duplicate 2nd claim, as seen in all the threads you find when you search Henderson defence.

Got it, thanks. That's a shame, I was hoping they would abandon the rest

I have moved address now, do you think I should proactively contact PCM and Gladstone's solicitors to inform them of my new address, to ensure I don't miss any important paperwork?

By the way I am working on my draft defence in line with your advice and I will post it here for comments once done. 

Thanks for all the help

KeithP

OP said:

I have moved address now, do you think I should proactively contact PCM and Gladstone's solicitors to inform them of my new address, to ensure I don't miss any important paperwork?

Yes, you must do that, remembering of course to also inform the County Court Business Centre.

Coupon-mad

Make sure you also email PCM about the other PCNs and tell them to erase your old address for ALL data held about you. 

fazzyp1000

Coupon-mad said:

fhpatel said:

Coupon-mad said:

Forget #3 because that was removed by the Supreme Court in their supposed infinite wisdom in 2015 when they upheld an incentivised penalty issuing model as ‘fair’. 

Copy the template defence and add your facts. For example, the ones that are 82 mins apart, where’s the evidence that the car wasn’t there to unload then left then returned? Just asking... 

The template defence covers all 4 of your points but you just need to add context to tell the Judge you were a tenant and that the agreement was silent about charges for parking...assuming that’s true.

Also do you still have a copy of, or can you get, your tenancy agreement and check what it says about peaceful enjoyment and parking?  The terms of your tenancy agreement are the only terms you are bound by and as a resident you have primacy of contract.

Thank you very much Coupon-mad. I will use the defence template as you suggest, and update with the particulars in my case. Shall I post it here once I've drafted it, in case you or any others have any feedback/ suggestions?

Re: the ticket that is 82 mins apart - it is possible, as I believe I was loading and unloading that day, however the 2 sets of photos show that the car was parked in precisely the same location. I think it would be considered unlikely that the car had been moved between the 2 sets of photos.

Re: the lease agreement, I have just re-read it. Here is what it says about parking and peaceful enjoyment:
"Not to leave or park (other than by parking a private motor car or motor cycle or bicycle in the car park) on any part of the estate any motor vehicle motor cycle bicycle or other vehicle and to observe all regulations made from time to time by the Landlord relating to the parking of vehicles (and the Tenant acknowledges the right of the Landlord or its agents to apply wheel clamps to vehicles parked in contravention of such regulations and to charge a fee for removal)"

"Quiet enjoyment
That the Tenant paying the Rents and complying with its other obligations under this Lease may peaceably hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interruption by the Landlord or any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for it"

I don't think there's much for us to work with there, what do you think?  

Certainly show us your draft but only what you add as facts, not the whole template defence for us yet again, please!  We’ve seen it, and I wrote it! 

Your first clause there isn’t great but it is out of date in law because private wheel clamping was banned in 2012, so in effect that section is an unlawful threat that (arguably) can be disregarded by tenants after 2012.  The second clause is very useful and you can quote that in your defence. 

How did you know you can only stop for 30 mins in a visitor bay if that’s not in the tenancy agreement.  Surely genuine visitors coming to see you were not only allowed to park for half an hour? So how do you know residents were held to that short time, was that stipulated in the ‘rules’ PCM imposed in a letter introducing permits?

I hope you’ve managed to find a home where no PPC infests now, because they blight estates and ruin people’s peace of mind.  Ex-clamper thugs have no place in residential car parks IMHO.

Hi. I've drafted my defence. Having read around the forum as advised, I think my key arguments are as follows:

- No valid contract: Nothing mentioned in my lease or the signage about 30 minute allowance for VP bay parking for residents,

- Ambiguous rules ie no mention of grace periods for residents and the signage is inaccurate because it does not stipulate the on-street parking procedure for Residents/ leaseholders

- Only marginally over my 30 minute allowance (for 3 out of 4 of the tickets)

- No evidence that I did not register for a digital permit with concierge. Unable to prove given time that has passed

- Victim of a campaign of harassment from this parking company. They have broken my right to quiet enjoyment of the premises as granted in the lease agreement

- Additional £60 charge is illegal (already covered in your template)

Therefore I propose to make the first 5 of these points in the section of the template that you left blank for the particulars of my case. Please see my 1st draft below.

Please can you let me know if this works or if there is anything I should change?

Thanks a lot once again!

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The defendant was a resident and leaseholder in the private development of apartments at the time of the alleged incidents. The defendant would have been utilising the on-street parking in order to transport young children back to their home, or to carry shopping or other items, before subsequently moving the vehicle back to his allocated parking bay within the secure car park.

4. The defendant alleges that there was no valid contract in place. There was no mention in the lease about the rules for on-street parking for residents/ leaseholders. Nor was there any mention about the rules for residents/ leaseholders to use the on-street parking facilities on the signage on display.

5. The only communication about the on-street parking entitlement for residents/ leaseholders was from Estate Management via email and post, but the rules were ambiguous and confusing. The communication stated that residents/ leaseholders could utilise “Visitor Parking Bays” for 30 minutes using their residents permit badge, but there was no mention of grace periods for residents and there was no explanation of how these rules related to the wording contained in the lease or the wording of the on-site signage, both of which omitted any mention of this rule. The communication also stated that parking sessions could be registered digitally for the use of “Visitor Parking Bays” for up to 4 hours, by logging the vehicle registration number via the iPad in the Concierge office.

6. On 3 out of the 4 occasions contained in this claim, the defendant appears to have been parked for only marginally over the 30 minute entitlement. On 10/11/20, the vehicle was only photographed 34 minutes apart; on 15/11/20, the vehicle was only photographed 32 minutes apart; On 11/12/20, the vehicle was only photographed 32 minutes apart.

7. On all occasions, there is no evidence that the defendant did not register a valid parking session via the iPad in Concierge, to allow on-street parking for longer than 30 minutes. The defendant has since contacted the Concierge to request access to the digital records from these dates, but unfortunately the records have since been destroyed.

8. In addition, the defendant alleges that he has been the victim of a campaign of harassment from the claimant, breaching his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises as granted in the lease agreement. The claimant was a new parking company appointed by Estate Management from August 2020. In the short period of time between then, and June 2021 (when the defendant moved out of the estate), the claimant issued over 15 tickets to the defendant. Many of these were for slightly overstaying the 30 minute allowance, many of these were when the defendant believed they had registered valid sessions at the Concierge digital service, and many of these were when the defendant was parked in his own bay with his permit on display. The defendant believes that he has been targeted by the claimant and has then subsequently received dozens of threatening and intimidating letters, emails, text messages and phone calls, from the claimant and their agents. This has caused a great deal of mental distress to the defendant and his family, and ultimately was a contributing factor to the defendant moving out of his long-term family home of over 8 years.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

Le_Kirk

Have you asked the MC/MA when the consultation about introducing a parking company took place and what was the result of the ballot amongst residents/tenant/leaseholder?  This has to be done in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/contents

Coupon-mad

6. On 3 out of the 4 occasions contained in this claim, the defendant appears to have been parked for only marginally over the 30 minute entitlement. On 10/11/20, the vehicle was only photographed 34 minutes apart; on 15/11/20, the vehicle was only photographed 32 minutes apart; On 11/12/20, the vehicle was only photographed 32 minutes apart.  That is, if the timing embedded into the photos is reliable and not altered as parking firms have been caught doing in previous cases.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of the reliability of their alleged timings which appear to have been created on an individual’s phone, and the Defendant expects to see a witness statement from the ticketer to explain the allegations, timings and why they did not allow the 4 hours that the Defendant believes was claimed from the concierge on these dates.