Think I'm being taken to court for parking in my own space - what do I do next?

DownwithPPCs

@Mirandoch from my experience your lease is your greatest asset. Your lease should state your rights and privileges with regards to parking in your own bay. You must read it. The parking company is not a party to the lease and therefore have no authority in making any alterations to your lease. The parking company usually send out a letter with a permit which is used to dupe residents into signing their nonsense. Hopefully you have not signed anything from the parking company saying that you opt in to their scheme because if so they will use that against you, so you'd need to be prepared to defend that also. We can help you prove that their 'contract' isn't worth the paper it's written on.
If you have not done already I would write to the parking company/MA saying that you want to be clear that you have have opted out of their scheme, that your car should not be monitored by the parking company as stated by the lease, which is the same as when you signed it, and that they have infringed on your right to quiet enjoyment of your property.

Coupon-mad

They are reportedly "aggressive" ex-clampers, who were on Watchdog/Rogue Traders.

Read some more PCM own space cases, e.g.:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76298513#Comment_76298513

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6412786/pcm-uk-fine-for-parking-in-my-allocated-spot-is-it-enforceable/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6349697/pcm-ticket-issued

This is not a firm that right-thinking people or MPs would say that any property agent should allow near residents' cars:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html

IMHO, an ex-clamper firm outed as a 'rogue trader' on Watchdog isn't worthy of your money nor of operating at a housing estate where the targets are going to be the residents.

 

Mirandoch

Hello again.

I apologise for leaving this so late again. To be honest, this whole business could not be happening at a worse time right now, but that's another story. At any rate, yesterday I finally sat down to write my defense. If one of you could find the time to look it over at some point during the weekend, I'd be extremely grateful for your input. Too long? Not long enough? Should I take out the line about only continuing to display the permit to avoid future harrassment? 

I have copied and pasted the entire defense, but only altered paragraphs 2 and 3, which I will post below.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  The Defendant parked the vehicle in their own space in their place of residence on 10/01/2021, but their permit was not on display. The Defendant requested a SAR in 2021, and so has seen the photos of the supposed transgression in question. There are so many reflections on the window it is hard to make out anything. But to the best of the Defendant’s memory of this particular incident, the permit had been taken out of its plastic case and unknowingly put back face down – the reason why the Defendant did this is because the paper kept on curling up so much, it ironically covered up the information on it to the point of unreadability. The Defendant tried several times to straighten it out before finally stuffing the back of the plastic case with wads of thick paper, which worked.

However the Defendant would like to point out that nowhere in their lease does it say that they have to display a parking permit and that they only continue to do so to avoid further harrassment. It is the Defendant’s understanding that the lease overrides any contract the management company may have with a parking company – that primacy of contract applies here. If there has been any relevant change to the lease since the Defendant last signed it, then the Defendant was not informed of this change.

Whether I win or lose, I intend on complaining to my management company about PCN afterwards. This isn't acceptable that a private parking firm can intimidate and threaten the residents for parking in their own space. I'm also thinking of moving home; if I do, and there is a private parking firm operating the car park at the new place, I am just going to write to management asking them to get the private parking firm to whitelist my car. If every resident did this, these cowboys couldn't use residents as their cash cow in the first place.

Coupon-mad

That looks fine so far. but remove this sentence:

"but their permit was not on display."

Who at Gladstones signed the claim form bottom left, a paralegal?  There may be an extra point to add if it wasn't a solicitor.

You could also add that the POC fail to state the allegation (the details of the allegation - what breach?) and the person who filed the claim has tried to add 10.25% per annum which far exceeds the Court cap (8%) and is wholly disproportionate and cannot be applied to the false added £70 'contractual costs' which are a known rip-off and are expressly denied, were never incurred and certainly the sum of £170 was not in play on the date of parking.

How much did they add as 'legal fees' on the right, £50?  Please check the claim form and tell us that and who signed it?

B789

How about something like this from @Itsme1893 who has a very similar defence? Just tweak as necessary,

3. It is denied that the Defendant or vehicle was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked as the tenancy holder of XXXX where the tenancy terms permit the parking of a vehicle on the land.  

4. There is no mention of displaying a permit within the tenancy agreement.  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, not secured to the windscreen itself and at times, possibly only visible from a certain direction of sight. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the court. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court.

5. Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Don't forget that each paragraph should be numbered sequentially. If you add another paragraph to your defence, you will need to renumber all the following paragraphs.

Mirandoch

Coupon-mad - Thank you massively for that! I really do appreciate your help.

Unfortunately I'm at my mum's now, so I won't be able to answer your questions until later on this evening when I go home. However, I will do my best to answer everything that you have asked me. I'm not sure about the paralegal question, but I will try googling their name to see who they are. I can't remember the legal fees offhand, but I will check and tell you that as well.

Urgh, I knew I should have brought the papers with me to my mum's

B789 - That looks pretty good too! I will see if I can incorporate some of that into my defense.

Quick question; do I have to number literally every paragraph, e.g. would the one in my defense beginning with "However" need to be numbered as 4? Thanks.

B789

Mirandoch said:

Quick question; do I have to number literally every paragraph, e.g. would the one in my defense beginning with "However" need to be numbered as 4? Thanks. 

@Coupon-mad suggests in the Newbies thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkok0eqpfz00vzw/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

ParkingMad

I knew I should have brought the papers with me to my mum's

I think you've already posted a photo of your claim form on the previous page.

Coupon-mad

Mirandoch said:

Here is the redacted claim form.

She is a solicitor so there is no point to be made about a paralegal carrying out reserved legal activity.

But you can still use my points about the 10.25% and the fact that it is denied that there was no contract agreeing to £170.

And that the POC do not specify the allegation (the term allegedly breached) so it is difficult to understand from the POC, the rationale and cause of action.

Mirandoch

Thank you, ParkingMad and Coupon-mad. It's too late for me to do anything now, but tomorrow I will add those points to my defense. Edit: I changed my mind and added coupon-mad's points to my defense. I'm wondering how/if I should include some of B789's points too, but I'll do that tomorrow - I really must go to bed now. Even for night owls, it's getting late >_>.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  The Defendant parked the vehicle in their own space in their place of residence on 10/01/2021. The Defendant requested a SAR in 2021, and so has seen the photos of the supposed transgression in question. There are so many reflections on the window it is hard to make out anything. But to the best of the Defendant’s memory of this particular incident, the permit had been taken out of its plastic case and unknowingly put back face down – the reason why the Defendant did this is because the paper kept on curling up so much, it ironically covered up the information on it to the point of unreadability. The Defendant tried several times to straighten it out before finally stuffing the back of the plastic case with wads of thick paper.

4. However the Defendant would like to point out that nowhere in their lease does it say that they have to display a parking permit and that they only continue to do so to avoid further harrassment. It is the Defendant’s understanding that the lease overrides any contract the management company may have with a parking company – that primacy of contract applies here. If there has been any variation to the lease since the Defendant last signed it, then the Defendant was not informed of this change. 

5. Additionally, the Particulars of Claim fail to specify the details of the allegation (what breach?).

6. Moreover, the person who filed the claim has tried to add 10.25% per annum. which far exceeds the Court cap (8%). This is wholly disproportionate and cannot be applied to the false added £70 'contractual costs' which are a known rip-off and are expressly denied, were never incurred and certainly the sum of £170 was not in play on the date of parking.