Own Space Parking CCC

Real_Cinnamon

My case is very similar to lymmylom's case below, 2 PCN, one from 2016, and the other from 2019, one from 2016, so called parking permit, has come off windscreen and was in the footwell. 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6254936/claim-form-defence-for-my-residential-parking/p1
Received CCJ on post dated 8th Sept 2021 and AOS submitted online on 26th September 2021

Claim form and pg 12 & 23 from lease agreement included here

After reading very helpful several posts and threads here, i have added below comments to include in the template suggested on newbie thread, many thanks to invaluable support offered by the each and everyone of you here.

Appreciate any help, your comments, suggestions to my below defence that have a good chance of strongly challenging these crazy companies. in 3g, i have made a statement about mistakenly making a partial payment, that is genuine, but i really can't remember the details, at the time i couldn't get a copy copy of the lease agreement from my landlord at the time. 

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. Claimant has provided 2 PCN details, No xxx (NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT) dated xx-July-2016 and No xxx (NOT PARKED WHOLLY WITHIN BAY) dated xx-August-2019

3a. Defendant is not a persistent offender, clearly no offence committed, and the PCNs are over 3 years apart.

3b. I am living atxxxxx address from February 2013 as a tenant, where this car is registered to and DVLA Records are matching.

3c. Lease Agreement clearly states the Flat 2’s entitlement to the parking space, however there is no mention or requirement to display a valid parking permit within the lease agreement, or no amendment to the lease agreement to include such requirement, neither any mentioned in basic tenancy agreement I had at the time regarding any agreement to display a valid parking permit. Of course, defendant acknowledge

3d. Furthermore, in defence of “Not parked wholly within Bay” most parking spaces within the property are much narrower, No 2 space measures 2.0m,  is considerably less than UK’s minimum car parking bay width required which is 2.4m guideline for parallel spaces.  At the time all Flat 1, 2 & 3 did park vehicles in their spaces, so among us we adopted common sense when parking with a offset and front/reverse parking that each other can get In and Out of their vehicles. As No 1 space parking against a wall, offset has to be on No 2, so if one vehicle gone away, car will obviously look not fully within the Bay.

3e. Also, sometimes if both cars 1 & 3 parked before me, there are instances I can’t park the car within no 2 space, I have had informal verbal agreement with Flat 12 tenant’s that I can use there space as they do not regularly use the space, which is against another wall.

3f. If I remember correct, I have appealed originally on both PCN highlighting these two key concerns, as the vehicle registered to the address and I have the right to park the car and the issue of narrow parking spaces, to my knowledge appeal was rejected.

3g. Defendant has a vague recollection of making a partial payment for a one of the PCN that went through by mistake under the time pressure due to not been able to access the lease agreement content timely but not definitely not an acceptance of any offence

D_P_Dance

Have you read these?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/435597-the-government-wants-to-put-your-lifetime-medical-records-onto-a-database-for-research-or-to-sell/?tab=comments#comment-5113920

Have you complained to your MP?   Have you considered a coubter claim for harassment, data breaches, unterference wuith leasehold rights?

Also,  they have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

A defence doesn't include the word "I" as you will gave seen from the template so change it all to "the Defendant" in the third person.

What you have written in point 3 should be saved for WS and evidence stage.  What you should be putting is the stuff you find in the residential defence examples I included in the NEWBIES thread exactly for the purpose of showing a Defendant what to put as their facts about their primacy of contract and rights as a resident.

When you have made twenty posts snd can edit your posts please change your thread title as you do not have a CCJ!  That thread title will mislead us every time we return to advise you.  It needs editing to remove the word 'CCJ'.

Also you have covered up the name of the PPC and their solicitor and we need to know that detail to help you.

KeithP

Real_Cinnamon said:

Received CCJ a County Court Claim dated 8th Sept 2021 and AOS submitted online on 26th September 2021.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th October 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Real_Cinnamon

Thank you D_P_Dance, Coupon-mad, KeithP for your suggestions and inputs. taking into account your comments and further readings, facts 2 and 3 now amended as below. very much appreciate your further inputs/ comments, also attached the claim form with names visible,
I haven't figured out how to change the discussion title to remove CCJ, i'll do that soon as i find out how to. many thanks. 

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

3. The Defendant is a tenant of the property of xxxx since xxxxxxx for which the residential carpark in question belongs to. The lease explicitly provides the defendant the right to use the carpark and at no instance in the lease does it state the defendant is required to display a permit. It is stated “Not to use the Parking Space included in the Demised premises other than for the parking of one motor vehicle”.

3a.  As legal tenant of the property, Defendant claims primacy of contract and right to park in accordance with the lease that cannot be overridden by the Claimant’s cardboard sign. It is also averred that there was no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant, or no amendment to the lease agreement to include such requirement, neither any mentioned in basic tenancy agreement defendant had at the time regarding any agreement to display a valid parking permit. It cannot be said that a clear offer was made by the claimant in this instance.

3b. Even if the court does not agree the defendant has an unfettered right to park, in the alternative, the permit was always displayed as a courtesy and not an obligation, and at all material times it was visible on the dashboard as a loose permit, at the time of this PCN, permit could possibly have fallen off the dashboard while defendant was getting out of the very tightly parked car, following above PCN, permit was secured to the windscreen as a courtesy and not an obligation.

3c. Furthermore, with reference to “Not parked wholly within Bay” most parking spaces within the property are much narrower, No 2 space measures 2.0m, it is considerably less than UK minimum car parking bay width required which is 2.4m guideline for parallel spaces.  At the time all Flat 1, 2 & 3 did park vehicles in their spaces, so among us we adopted common sense when parking with a offset and front/reverse parking that each other can get In and Out of their vehicles. As No 1 space parking against a wall, offset had to be on No 2, so if one vehicle gone away, car will obviously look not fully within the Bay

3d. Also, sometimes if both cars 1 & 3 parked prior to the defendant, there are instances defendant can’t park the car within no 2 spaces, defendant have had informal verbal agreement with Flat 12’s resident that defendant can use their space as they do not regularly use the space, which is against another wall.

3e. To the best of defendant’s knowledge, defendant have appealed originally on both PCN highlighting these two key concerns, as the vehicle registered to the address and defendant have the right to park the car and the issue of narrow parking spaces, to the defendant’s knowledge, appeals were rejected.

3f. Defendant has a vague recollection of making a partial payment for a one of the PCN that went through by mistake under the time pressure due to not been able to access the lease agreement content timely but clearly not an acceptance of any offence.  

D_P_Dance

Have you considered, is there still timefor  a counter claim for harassment.  The PPC is very well aware that they are likely to lose these cases due to primacy, and may cry uncle.  With a counter calim in place doing so is likely to cost them.a lot more.    

Real_Cinnamon

D_P_Dance said:

Have you considered, is there still timefor  a counter claim for harassment.  The PPC is very well aware that they are likely to lose these cases due to primacy, and may cry uncle.  With a counter calim in place doing so is likely to cost them.a lot more.    

Thanks   D_P_Dance
I still haven't submitted my defence, counter claim should be part of defence? does that need to be within  section 2 & 3 of the defence template? apologies i'm learning a lot hear, so any comments welcome. many thanks

D_P_Dance

I am not familiar with cc processes, other will probably answer.  

Coupon-mad

Read the counterclaims by @Nosy & @ellaro9 on their threads and decide if you think you have grounds.

Fruitcake

You still have sections that would be better saved for the witness statement stage. I suggest the following amanedments.

Real_Cinnamon said:

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

It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3. The Defendant is a tenant of the property of No 2 Barbican Court since February 2013 for which the residential carpark in question belongs to. The lease explicitly provides the defendant the right to use the carpark and at no instance in the lease does it state the defendant is required to display a permit. It is stated “Not to use the Parking Space included in the Demised premises other than for the parking of one motor vehicle”.

3a.  As legal tenant of the property, Defendant claims primacy of contract and right to park in accordance with the lease that cannot be overridden by the Claimant’s cardboard sign. It is also averred that there was no clear signage to form a contract between the claimant and the defendant, or no amendment to the lease agreement to include such requirement, neither any mentioned in basic tenancy agreement defendant had at the time regarding any agreement to display a valid parking permit. It cannot be said that a clear offer was made by the claimant in this instance.

3b. Even if the court does not agree the defendant has an unfettered right to park, in the alternative, the permit was always displayed as a courtesy and not an obligation, and at all material times it was visible on the dashboard as a loose permit, at the time of this PCN, permit could possibly have fallen off the dashboard while defendant was getting out of the very tightly parked car, following above PCN, permit was secured to the windscreen as a courtesy and not an obligation.

3c. Furthermore, with reference to “Not parked wholly within Bay” most parking spaces within the property are much narrower, No 2 space measures 2.0m, it is considerably less than UK minimum car parking bay width required which is 2.4m guideline for parallel spaces.  At the time all Flat 1, 2 & 3 did park vehicles in their spaces, so among us we adopted common sense when parking with a offset and front/reverse parking that each other can get In and Out of their vehicles. As No 1 space parking against a wall, offset had to be on No 2, so if one vehicle gone away, car will obviously look not fully within the Bay

3d. Also, sometimes if both cars 1 & 3 parked prior to the defendant, there are instances defendant can’t park the car within no 2 spaces, defendant have had informal verbal agreement with Flat 12’s resident that defendant can use their space as they do not regularly use the space, which is against another wall.

3e. To the best of defendant’s knowledge, defendant have appealed originally on both PCN highlighting these two key concerns, as the vehicle registered to the address and defendant have the right to park the car and the issue of narrow parking spaces, to the defendant’s knowledge, appeals were rejected.

3f. Defendant has a vague recollection of making a partial payment for a one of the PCN that went through by mistake under the time pressure due to not been able to access the lease agreement content timely but clearly not an acceptance of any offence.  

Have you complained to the landowner and managing agent (if the latter is relevant). It is never too late to get a landowner cancellation.

You should do a search of other threads about Autosec and their owner/former owner, who has convictions for racially aggravated assault, and told a motorist whose address he had obtained,  "I know where your live. I will come and rape your wife."

Ask why a violent convicted criminal was contracted to harass genuine residents. I would be worried that Mr DelGrosso has obtained a motorist's address. I would fear for the safety of any female living there. The landowner/MA and any resident where a woman lives should be made aware of this man's previous behaviour.

D_P_Dance

Have you discussed this with other residents, perhaps raised it with your landlord.  Thes companies have no place in residential car parks, they adversely affect rents and depress resale values.