County Court Claim-QDR solicitors/Met Parking

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above.  That is how to play it.

berseker

Hi Guys, hope you have been well. Ive posted my personal defence below. If someone doesn't mind proof reading it and giving me feedback would be appreciated. 

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.  It is unclear as to what legal basis this claim is brought forward with. Breach of contract? I have checked my tenancy agreement and it does not state anything about parking on the estate. It also does not state anything about parking permits, displaying permits or punishments for not using or displaying permits. I’m not sure as to how MET parking can legally come onto private land they do not own, penalise tenants that live on the land, but the tenants have nothing in their contracts stating anything about this or even any information on a contractual agreement that the landlord has with MET parking. During this whole time, I have not received any correspondence or tickets from my landlord, who I am in contract with and who I pay rent to, so again I’m unsure how a third-party company can penalise me when there is no contractual agreement between us.

 I believe I have been falsely led into thinking that it is mandatory to have a visitors permit as part of my tenancy agreement. As you can see from the pictures in two of the PCNS, I adhered to the ‘rules’ and purchased a permit. I had to fill out the permit every time I parked with certain details (time, day, date, etc). As this was a new routine for me, I did not have a pen in the car, so unfortunately, I was not able to fill out the permit. Although the permit was clearly visible on the dashboard, which has my permit number on, I feel that it was very harsh to issue the PCNS. If I had a pen at the time, there is no reason for me not to fill it out. Even if I had forgotten to fill out the permit one day, you can clearly see I have a permit on the dashboard; why wouldn’t the traffic warden give me the benefit of the doubt? It is clear to see I have a right to park on the estate.

 It seems like the sole purpose of these companies is to take people’s money, and plus some. I’m sure that they tell the landlord their main purpose will be to keep the estate parking clear of non-residence and/or people who have no concern/reason to be parked there so residence do not have any problems parking. However, as we can see from my case, they are so quick to penalise anyone, regardless of if they are eligible to park there or not.           

??EXTRA??:

There's a couple of PCNs i received (after the three on this claim) that show i have a note on the dashboard, next to a filled up permit, stating i have ordered another permit but it is taking longer than expected to arrive. Just thinking this will show that the traffic wardens have no compassion as they can clearly see i have a permit but still issued a ticket. Or is it best to not include anything thats not part of this claim?

Thank You.

Redx

A Defence is written in the 3rd party mode , the defendant , no , Me , I , Myself or My , definitely no I

It's supposed to be concise , outlining brief facts , core argument ,saving the stories for the WS stage in several months time , yet yours looks more like a WS.

In 2 , I would expect to see either

Keeper and driver
Keeper but not the driver

Keeper but driver not known due to blah blah

Think what you would truthfully say in court under oath if asked if you were the driver ?

berseker

I have made the changes below. Is thatbetter?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 3.  -There is nothing in the Defendants tenancy agreement that states anything about parking permits, displaying permits or punishment for not using or displaying a permit.

-The Defendant has no contract with MET parking, nor has the Defendant been advised by their landlord that there is a contract in place.

-The Defendant had a permit visible on the dashboard but did not have a row filled in due to not having a pen but was still penalised for it.

-The Defendant was falsely led into thinking it is mandatory to have a visitors permit as part of the tenancy agreement.

-The Defendant believes that no compassion is shown to the residence of the estate. There may be the odd mistake made on a permit or if it is forgotten to be displayed one time, yet they are still penalised.

Thank You.

Redx

Residents , not residence !!

berseker

changed now, thank you. Would that be enough to send with the rest of the appeal?

Thank You

Coupon-mad

It's not an appeal.  You are doing a defence to a court claim.  Remove this bit as it adds nothing useful:

-The Defendant believes that no compassion is shown to the residence of the estate. There may be the odd mistake made on a permit or if it is forgotten to be displayed one time, yet they are still penalise

berseker

Yes sorry, Just gets a bit confusing/overwhelming with the amount of information/threads there are and all the people going through the same/similar problems. But very thankful for all that information and you guys's help, honestly appreciate it. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 3.  -There is nothing in the Defendants tenancy agreement that states anything about parking permits, displaying permits or punishment for not using or displaying a permit.

-The Defendant has no contract with MET parking, nor has the Defendant been advised by their landlord that there is a contract in place.

-The Defendant had a permit visible on the dashboard but did not have a row filled in due to not having a pen but was still penalised for it.

-The Defendant was falsely led into thinking it is mandatory to have a visitors permit as part of the tenancy agreement.

^so would that be ok/enough to send with the rest of the appeal? anything else i should potentially add in? 

Thank You.

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number rather than a "-".  You might be able to join some of those statements together to form fewer paragraphs and you might add that, even though your lease agreement does not require you to display a permit, you did so out of courtesy and therefore the fact that it was not fully filled in is irrelevant.

Redx

As above , plus it's still a defence , not an appeal

The time to appeal was a long time ago 🙃🙃🙃