County Court Claim-QDR solicitors/Met Parking

berseker

Hi guys, hope you're all having a good start to your weekend. I have pasted below what i have written. Could someone please tell me if this is ok? Do i send this with the rest of the defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk now? Is there anything else that i need to do or just wait for the courts response after? 

I also got a call from qdr solicitors last week. I missed the call and copied the number into google and came up as them but they did not leave any messages.

Thank You.

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. 

(1)    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 was falsely led into thinking it is mandatory to have a permit as part of their tenancy agreement.

 

(2)    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 this. As stated previously, my lease agreement does not require me to display a permit. I have displayed a permit out of courtesy and therefore the fact that on occasions it may not have been filled in/visible is irrelevant.

Redx

Should be 3 numbered paragraphs , 2 & 3 & 4 , losing the sub paragraph numbers

The last one says my , should be , the defendants !!

Same with me

Same with I

So no , My , Me , Myself and I

So the last paragraph should be like the middle paragraph , third party only

The time to email the finished completed and renumbered defence to both the ccbcaq email address plus the claimants lawyer ( or claimant ) too , is on a weekday between 9 and 4 , not a weekend or evening , checking for email auto receipt in your inbox folder and spam folder

Edit the above and repost below

Ps , your last question is answered in the template defence post by coupon mad , the 12 numbered steps and her explanation notes , re you sure that you have read them ?  I think not 🙃🙃

berseker

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. I have rectified and pasted below. I have read it all but i have about 30 tabs of different threads open which all gets a bit on top of each other. I have gone back to basics, newbie thread, and found the part you are talking about. Thanks.

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 was falsely led into thinking it is mandatory to have a permit as part of their tenancy agreement.

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 this. As stated previously, The Defendants lease agreement does not require them to have a permit displayed. The Defendant displayed a permit out of courtesy and therefore the fact that on occasions it may be filled in/visible is irrelevant.

Le_Kirk

Every paragraph requires a number.  I am not sure I would put the part about not having a pen or a part of the "not required" permit was not filled in.  If you displayed it out of courtesy, who cares about it being completed.  If the PPC/management company wanted it filled in, they could have done so before issuing it.

Coupon-mad

I thought earlier in this thread we advised not to admit to any column not being filled in?  Also remove these as they contradict each other snd don't help you:

 nor has the Defendant been advised by their landlord that there is a contract in place. 

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

Why not simply copy stuff in the example residential defence I linked in the NEWBIES thread for people like you to learn from and use for your facts section?  That's why that example is there, despite us using a template defence, it's to show you how to word a residential defence facts section.

berseker

@Le_Kirk thank you i have made changes.

@Coupon-mad i have removed those two parts. I have read the residential threads (i believe there are 4-5) in the newbie thread, but all of them have one thing in common which my situation doesn't, their lease agreements state they can park in the residential car park, my lease doesn't mention anything about that or parking for that matter.

one section i read on parking-prankster is,
The Signage - Performance

In those instances where there is no primacy of contract it is likely the contract will be formed by signage on site. This will need to be plentiful and easily visible, otherwise no contract can be entered by performance.

Would this appeal to me? As there is nothing mentioned about parking in my lease then 'i have to adhere to the parking signs in the estate'?

Thank YOu.

KeithP

If your lease doesn't specify any parking restrictions/conditions, then there are no parking restrictions/conditions.

berseker

I have made changes and also added in some extra stuff ive seen from other threads. Is this defence better? Thank You 

In section 3.3 'as proof they live on the estate', should i leave that part in? although i do live on the estate i had a visitors permit so im not sure if this will effect it.

Also, im not sure if this will help in any way, met parking have actually stopped operating on my estate now for about 4-5 months.

3.

3.1. The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park or does not mention anything about parking, then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park. 

3.2. There is nothing in the Defendants tenancy lease 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.

3.3. The Defendant had a permit visible on the dashboard, as proof they live on the estate, but still received a PCN. The Defendant displayed a permit out of courtesy and therefore anything else is irrelevant.

 3.3. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Thank You

Coupon-mad

I would add another point saying that the Claimant has been removed by the estate management or their Contract was not extended.  This is believed to be due to complaints by residents, who were being unfairly and unnecessarily targeted and bound by irrelevant rules and unconscionable charges.  They that are no longer at this estate and are put to strict proof as to the reason for this, including complaint numbers and communications from estate management before they left.


Also I'd change this:

If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park or does not mention anything about any 'relevant contract or obligation' relating to parking, permits or indeed any charges for parking.  The Defendant rented the flat on the basis that it includes parking and a resident is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property.   The only charges and obligations are as set in the tenancy agreement.

berseker

You guys have been a great help. Honestly wish i could get you guys a coffee or something as it has been a very stressful experience but i feel very confident now. fingers crossed it all goes well. ive copied my defence below. I think it all looks good but you guys are the professionals so if you dont mind giving me the all clear, ill get it sent off straight away. Thank You.

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. 

 3.1. The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document.  If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park or does not mention anything about any 'relevant contract or obligation' relating to parking, permits or indeed any charges for parking. The Defendant rented the flat on the basis that it includes parking, and a resident is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property. The only charges and obligations are as set in the tenancy agreement.

3.2. 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.

3.3. The Defendant had a permit visible on the dashboard, as proof they live on the estate, but still received a PCN. The Defendant displayed a permit out of courtesy and therefore anything else is irrelevant.

 3.3. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

3.4. The Claimant has been removed by the estate management or their Contract has not been extended as they have not been operating on the estate for quite some time now. This is believed to be due to countless complaints by residents, who were being unfairly and unnecessarily targeted and bound by irrelevant rules and unconscionable charges. They that are no longer at this estate and are put to strict proof as to the reason for this, including complaint numbers and communications from estate management before they left.