County Court Claim-QDR solicitors/Met Parking

D_P_Dance

As a landlord I would like to see thes companies barred from these car parks.  

Coupon-mad

Change this last bit, you had 'they that' at the start of this:


The Claimant is 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. This appears to be a 'revenge claim' against a known resident in an attempt to recoup unrelated losses due to the lost contract.  The Defendant should not have to shoulder that burden, nor continue to be targeted where there is clearly no commercial justification nor legitimate interest.

berseker

@Coupon-mad you are an absolute legend, may god bless you. Thank you everyone else for your time and help, i really do 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. 

 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. The Claimant is 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. This appears to be a 'revenge claim' against a known resident in an attempt to recoup unrelated losses due to the lost contract.  The Defendant should not have to shoulder that burden, nor continue to be targeted where there is clearly no commercial justification nor legitimate interest.

This shall be sent tonight to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk and QDR solicitors. I will be sure to keep you guys updated on the outcome and throughout.

Thank you once again

berseker

Just an update. I received a letter from the courts stating that they had received my defence and that they have sent a copy of my defence to the claimant, which they have 28 days to respond with how they would like to move forward. On the 27th day i received a letter from QDR solicitors stating they are progressing with the claim, so i guess i'll be seeing them in court.

Le_Kirk

berseker said:

Just an update. I received a letter from the courts stating that they had received my appeal and that they have sent a copy of my appeal to the claimant, which they have 28 days to respond with how they would like to move forward. On the 27th day i received a letter from QDR solicitors stating they are progressing with the claim, so i guess i'll be seeing them in court.

Did you mean defence?  Did they really say appeal?

berseker

Sorry i meant defence, I have corrected it. Thank You. Hope everyone has been well.

berseker

Hi Guys,

Long time, although seems like a while ago now, happy new year and hope all is well.

I received the below letter in the post and looks like Met Parking is trying its luck in court. The only reason I can think of why they would is the amount they are trying to compensate or because although I live where I received the tickets, my car is registered at another address, so they may think 'i have no business parking there'. Has anyone seen a case lately that has gone to court or has any advice?

Thank You.

Coupon-mad

Every thread here is about court and the advice about what to do when (witness statement and evidence) is in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread under the red heading.

The best example that shows the whole exhibits bundle and costs assessment (but that was in 2021 and doesn't include the new wording about the DLUHC's new Code of Practice and banned debt recovery 'costs') is by @jrhys

Fruitcake

Was this a mediation hearing?

The judge seems to be clueless. Unfettered means your rights are absolute, and nobody else can charge you for doing something you already have a right to do.

The judge is wrong about immediately getting a CCJ if you lose. This just isn't true.

If your lease made no mention of a PPC, paying for a permit (which you only did as a courtesy in an attempt to avoid exactly this situation), PCNs, paying PCNs, or court claim, then there is no contract with the PPC because there is no offer, no consideration, and no acceptance.

Umkomaas

The Judge was correct in saying that should the case be lost, a CCJ would be issued against you (County Court Judgment). Absolutely correct statement. But that doesn't mean it has any affect, on what people assume a CCJ would have, a negative impact on their credit rating. That only occurs if the judgment costs are not paid by the date set by the Judge. If they are paid in time, the CCJ is expunged from the defendant's records, disappearing as if nothing had happened, no impact on credit rating. 

CCJ isn't shorthand for a credit problem.