Own Space Parking CCC

Real_Cinnamon

Fruitcake said:

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.

Thanks for your help and comments, much appreciated. Will amend the defence, will contact the property management agents. I genuinely thought, even though i had never ending threatening letters, Autosec never going to go to court for this as clearly they don't have any grounds. therefore i didn't contact the property management agents. i'll give it try as well. many thanks

Le_Kirk

One more change: -

3. The Defendant is a tenant of the property of No 2 Barbican Court since February 2013 to for which the residential carpark in question belongs to

Real_Cinnamon

Merry Christmas to everyone!!
Almost after a year, there is an update on my CCC, that means needing your valuable help again.
Claimant has filled amended claim and I am defending it fully and very keen to hear your help, suggestions, view points, on below comments and attached. Or if anyone can think of a example of any similar case.

Defendant will defend points on amended claim

5. - Denied contract with the claimant, will provide info from Lease Agreement as rightful access to the land and no trespassing
6. - Denied the driver of the vehicle, Defendant has no connection to "permit for parking bay 6", further proves that the defendant is not the driver of the vehicle
13., 14., 15., Denied ever receiving Keeper's liability notice in line with POPA

Any comments, helps, view points, suggestions much appreciated. 

Mouse007

Real_Cinnamon said:

6. - Denied the driver of the vehicle, Defendant has no connection to "permit for parking bay 6", further proves that the defendant is not the driver of the vehicle

I don't understand this, you have already admitted to being the driver. In which case PoFA is not applicable.

What the Ammended Particular of Claim show is (shock horror surprise) that the Claimant has not read your first defence.

Can you post a picture of the sign? It reads to me from the ammended PoC that it contains no offer. No offer means no contract.

Real_Cinnamon

Mouse007 said:

Real_Cinnamon said:

6. - Denied the driver of the vehicle, Defendant has no connection to "permit for parking bay 6", further proves that the defendant is not the driver of the vehicle

I don't understand this, you have already admitted to being the driver. In which case PoFA is not applicable.

What the Ammended Particular of Claim show is (shock horror surprise) that the Claimant has not read your first defence.

Can you post a picture of the sign? It reads to me from the ammended PoC that it contains no offer. No offer means no contract.

Apoloiges, I have not admitted as the driver, my comments are just in preparation of the defence, and i will reword before submitting, appreciate the view on wording, unless you have picked up something i obviously made an error on my original defence, please comment if that's the case. I'm sorry, bit overwhelming this never ending saga.

I'm sorry, parking managing companies have changed many times, and claimant never presented the pictures of the sign and didn't request as not the driver. i can upload a picture of what's there now or copy of the page from the lease, that's my defence as keeper, right for access to the private land in question.
Thanks again, apologies, in case i'm confusing you more.

Fruitcake

Did you intend to show your personal data such as VRM and your address to the world?

Real_Cinnamon

Fruitcake said:

Did you intend to show your personal data such as VRM and your address to the world?

Thanks, didn't meant to, missed out, will see if i can delete it repost last files. thanks

Real_Cinnamon

submitted original defence main sections are as below again. many thanks 

Mouse007

In your draft Defence last year you admitted to being the driver but you deny being so in the above submitted Defence. I Think that could be a problem and suggest you consider this point very carefully in your substitute (new) Defence. Remember that you sign a statement of truth and risk Contempt of Court if found to be lying. It may also damage your credibility and undermine other areas of your Defence.

Does keeper liability make much difference in a residential parking case? I personally don’t think it matters.

Have a read of other “own space” threads like this one

Johnersh

You can't allege particulars lack sufficient specifics when they've tidied up and served a new one. 

I'm not clear that the particulars reproduce all the information in the sign. It needs to in order to comply with the cpr.

If C brings their claim wholly on the basis of PoFA they are likely limited to £100. They should be made to prove that any driver seeing their sign consented to potentially unlimited additional costs being landed at their door and made to prove that those are actual costs that have been incurred.

And yes. Do make sure the defences are consistent (and honest).