County Court Claim-QDR solicitors/Met Parking

berseker

Thank you @Umkomaas. I paid the £350 that was asked of me as I do not want a CCJ on file. Hopefully, that's the end of that. Thank you all for your time and help.

Coupon-mad

berseker said:

Thank you @Umkomaas. I paid the £350 that was asked of me as I do not want a CCJ on file. Hopefully, that's the end of that. Thank you all for your time and help.

This is hilarious!  You lost your case but the Judge mucked up the Order - telling you to pay only the costs; a third of what was actually said at the hearing - and dismissed the whole claim!

Hmmm...I would be surprised if the Claimant accepts this judgment. I think they will apply to set it aside under some rule or other.

Hold onto ALL your paperwork in case it rears its ugly head again. I don't think it's over.

berseker

Good morning everyone, hope everyone has been well. As stated in my first message on this thread, I had about 10 pcns (I've come to find out its 13 pcns) but was only taken to court for 3 of them. Now I have received a court letter taking me to court for all 13. 2 of the 3 I have already been to court for and paid are also included in the claim form, weird. The initial claimant was QDR solicitors, now it is DCB Legal. All the tickets were issued between 2019 and 2020. 

I will use the same defence as before (hopefully, I get a more understanding judge this time) and there are a few extra points that I will add in. Is it worth mentioning that two of the pcns out of the 13 they have raised have already been paid? It's a catch-22 situation where I don't want to shoot myself in the foot and bring it up so they can use it as 'why did you pay/you lost in court already' so won't give me a fair chance to hear out my defence.

There are a couple of other things that have occurred that I will add to my defence. If there is any advice that anyone can give, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You

Coupon-mad

Can you show us this claim form minus the Claim no, the MCOL Password and your data & VRM please?

Your defence must state this if you are sure they are the same PCNs. How can you be sure because the claim won't have listed 13 PCN refs?

berseker

Hi @Coupon-mad,

The previous claim form and the current one both have different claim numbers. On the left side of the claim form under 'Particulars of Claim' it has all the dates the pcns were issued. 2 of the 13 pcns are the same date as 2 of the 3 that I went to court for before and the other one I went to court for before is not on the current claim form. I also checked the SAR files I was sent previously and cross-referenced all the dates on this current claim form and all the dates are the same except one that is not on this claim, 1 of the 3 that I went to court for already but the other 2 of those are on this claim form

Coupon-mad

Remind us. Did you lose those at a hearing, and on what basis?

What will you do differently to overcome the issue this time?  It won't be the same Judge so you will get a fair hearing.

You MUST state in your facts that the claim is improperly pleaded in a false premise, incorrect quantum and without anyone bothering to carry out due diligence checks. And explain why, specifically...but maybe don't tell them which ones were already the subject of a hearing!  Just say 'some'.  Let them work it out.

berseker

@Coupon-mad Yes I lost those 3 at a hearing. The judge just seemed like she woke up on the wrong side of the bed and the whole thing did not seem fair to be completely honest. 

The parking firm has changed on my estate and they have now painted down bay lines/numbers. The majority of my tickets were in the same bay, that same bay is now marked 'V' for visitors and anyone can park there without a permit. The bay marking was not there at the time of the pcns but apparently, this space has always been a visitors' bay. There is also a small metal oval-shaped sign (size of 3 £2 coins) that has a V on it that's on a small wall at the back of the bay and was there at the time of the pcns.

Quite a few of the pcns have a fully filled-out visitor parking slip on the dashboard with a note next to it 'awaiting new parking slip'. At the time I had ordered a new visitor parking slip but it had taken weeks to be delivered. Whereas the first one I ordered was delivered within a couple of days.

All the correspondence I have received and from doing research online are all the same copy-paste information from Yasmin Mia. 

berseker

I have attached my defence below, if anyone has any input to give, would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the defence, For a few of the pcns I had a filled-out visitors permit and had a note next to it stating I am awaiting a new empty blank canvas visitors permit. Usually, I get the new permit within a few days but I remember that time it took a couple of weeks to come. Thank You

 3.1. The idea behind the primacy of a 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 right to park or does not mention anything about any 'relevant contract or obligation' relating to parking, permits or indeed any parking charges. 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. Nothing in the Defendant's tenancy agreement 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. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading temporarily.

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 is 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 no commercial justification nor legitimate interest. Especially when these PCNs are 3-4 years old.

 

3.5. It has come to the defendant's knowledge after very recently speaking to the landlord, that there are and have always been visitors' bays that are free to use for residence (or anyone for that matter) without having to have any form of visible permit. For most of the ‘PCNs’ that were received, the defendant was parked in those visitor’s bays.

 

3.6. The Defendant has done their due diligence online on DCB Legal and has come to find out that all correspondence DCB Legal sends out is the same automated letters that are ‘signed’ by the same person, Yasmin Mia.

 

3.7. Furthermore, to the above statement, the claim is improperly pleaded in a false premise, incorrect information and without anyone bothering to carry out due diligence checks. Some of the ‘PCNs’ that are included in this claim form have already been paid for.

 

3.9. The ‘PCNs’ initially came from Met Parking, then they came from QDR Solicitors and now DCB Legal is the one chasing them up. Is this normal?

Coupon-mad

Remove 3.6, 3.7 snd 3.9 which add nothing except for you say "some of these PCNs have been paid" (errr...why?!).  Anyway only that point is important from those paragraphs.

Typo here and a greengrocer's apostrophe:

"there are and have always been visitors' bays that are free to use for residence (or anyone for that matter) without having to have any form of visible permit. For most of the ‘PCNs’ that were received, the defendant was parked in those visitor’s bays."

berseker

@Coupon-mad Hi, thanks for your input and swift response. Is the below ok? Thanks

3.5. It has come to the defendant's knowledge after very recently speaking to the landlord, that there are and have always been visitors' bays that are free to use for residents (or anyone for that matter) without having to have any form of visible permit. For most of the ‘PCNs’ that were received, the defendant was parked in those visitor bays.

 

3.6. The claim is improperly pleaded in a false premise, with incorrect information and without anyone bothering to carry out due diligence checks. Some of the ‘PCNs’ that are included in this claim form have already been paid for.