Court Report - Romford (CVP) - Link Parking Lose 37 x PCN Claim

bargepole

Case No. G3DP2F0Z – Link Parking v Mr M, before Deputy District Judge Walton

Claimant represented by Mr Dacle (agent)

This was a very unusual case. The Defendant is the leaseholder of a property, which comes with two parking spaces demised in the lease. However, he does not own any vehicle, and does not have a full driving licence, only a provisional. Neither he nor his partner have ever taken any driving lessons, nor ever driven a car.

Between June and November 2018, an unknown person began parking a BMW in one of his spaces. They did so on 37 separate occasions. Mr M was concerned that windscreen tickets were appearing on that car, and that reminded him that he needed to locate his visitors’ permit, in case other family members came to visit. He contacted Link, asking for a replacement permit, and confirmed the registration no. of the car that was using his space.

This was taken by Link as an admission that he had been driving the car, and they sent 37 Notices to Keeper to his address. For reasons unknown, they do not appear to have ever applied to the DVLA for the actual keeper details.

Mr M contacted Link on numerous occasions, as well as BW Legal when they took over the pursuit of the charges, explaining that the vehicle in question was nothing to do with him, and attaching letters from the DVLA, confirming that he had never been the keeper of that vehicle, and only held a provisional licence.

A claim form was subsequently issued, claiming a total of £5,673.66, including £800 in ‘recovery costs’. I assisted Mr M with his Defence, and also a Counterclaim for damages arising from harassment, in the sum of £3,700 - £100 per PCN.

After a fruitless ‘dispute resolution hearing’ in June, the final hearing was listed for today by CVP.

The Claimant’s WS had been written and signed by a paralegal working for BW Legal, who clearly had no first-hand knowledge of the facts, or the location. It was full of untruths, misleading assertions, and prolix arguments. Belatedly, 7 days after the deadline, they had also filed a one page statement from the Director of Link Parking, stating that the paralegal’s statement was true to the best of his knowledge.

I helped Mr M draft his WS, which included in evidence some 57 letters received from Link / BW Legal, and also evidence that on three of the occasions when they alleged he had been driving the car, he was actually abroad on a trip to China, and the vehicle had not been parked in exactly the same spot on those occasions.

The DDJ heard the submissions from both sides, and was referred to a number of evidence documents. We then adjourned for 15 minutes while he considered his Judgment.

The Judgment was that the Claimant had failed to prove that Mr M had been the driver of the car on any of the 37 occasions, and in particular could not have been the driver while abroad. Even if he had been the driver, which was not accepted, the terms of his Lease granted an unfettered right to park, so there would have been primacy of contract in any event. For those reasons, the claim was dismissed.

Turning to the counterclaim, in which we relied on VCS v Ferguson (a case where £1,500 was awarded under the PHA 1997 for a single PCN), the DDJ said he had to decide whether it was reasonable for Link to pursue this claim. He found that the ambiguity of Mr M’s original emails to Link, where he said ‘I’m getting tickets for parking in my space’, created a reasonable assumption that he was admitting to being the driver, and they were entitled to pursue a case on that basis. Therefore the counterclaim was dismissed.

Mr M was awarded £47.50 costs for a half day loss of earnings. The Judge did not agree that the Claimant had crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, so no further costs were awarded.

 

Umkomaas

Great result, well done @bargepole and thanks for the report. 

I'm pretty shocked at the Defendant getting £zero for all the hassle to which he was subjected.  There appears so much wrong in Link's whole case against him. Juxtapose that with a motorist making the slightest of errors and some Judges are instantly finding against them, mercilessly!

patient_dream

Well done.

A car crash for BWLegal who clearly looked no further than the smell of money.

Not sure how a judge could assume "‘I’m getting tickets for parking in my space’ ?

No different to saying to the post office "why are you delivering this post to my address"

It's the interpretations of the English language that causes so many problems.

Good result and a car crash for BWLegal and Link

Snakes_Belly

Well done.

I feel for people who have issues with residential parking. In my opinion it's the worst case scenario. If a motorist receives a PCN in a random car park they can fight their corner but will never have to use that car park again. Not so for a residential car parking space and this must affect their mental health to have this hassle on a regular basis.    

This is likely to happen more and more now as new housing often has parking spaces rather than a drive.  

D_P_Dance

.Well done, it is a .treavesty.  If this had happened to me I would have raised heaven and earth to get adequate compensation. .
..
37 invoices in one's own space.  How can thi not be unreasonable?.

Why on earth did Mr M not go after the PPC for harassment and or interference in his rifgts under housing legislation.  ...

I say time and time again that judges are not fools, am I wrong?i

bargepole

Why on earth did Mr M not go after the PPC for harassment 

Did you not read the report? Damages for harassment was exactly the basis upon which the counterclaim was pleaded.

Unfortunately, he rather shot himself in the foot in his initial responses to Link, by failing to make it clear that the vehicle in question was completely unconnected to him, whether as owner, keeper or driver.

Snakes_Belly

"Unfortunately, he rather shot himself in the foot in his initial responses to Link, by failing to make it clear that the vehicle in question was completely unconnected to him, whether as owner, keeper or driver."

Probably getting stressed out by all the PCN's.  Let's hope that the new CoP gives residents with allocated spaces more protection from these grubby money grabbers. 

Jenni_D

Snakes_Belly said:

"Unfortunately, he rather shot himself in the foot in his initial responses to Link, by failing to make it clear that the vehicle in question was completely unconnected to him, whether as owner, keeper or driver."

Probably getting stressed out by all the PCN's and letters from BW. Let's hope that the new CoP gives residents with allocated spaces more protection from these grubby money grabbers. 

At that time he didn't have any PCNs or letters from Link. They only started sending him the PCNs/NTKs after he contacted Link and worded his enquiry poorly. Link put 2+2 together and made 5, but the judge ruled that the poor mathematics (to continue the analogy) was reasonable based on the information they received.

However I believe the judge has overlooked the consistent replies and evidence from the Defendant (that had been advised to Link right from the outset) that they were chasing the wrong defendant, and that evidence was provided long before any court action was considered. I think Link have been very lucky.

bargepole

However I believe the judge has overlooked the consistent replies and evidence from the Defendant (that had been advised to Link right from the outset) that they were chasing the wrong defendant, and that evidence was provided long before any court action was considered. I think Link have been very lucky.

Yes, that was more or less the argument I made to the Judge - Link and/or BW Legal were made aware of all this, several times, and before the claim was issued. But the Judge didn't go with it.

D_P_Dance

Is tthere no way that he could have gone after the PPC for interference in his leasehold rights?  If i were to harass one of my tenants I am sure I would not get off with a £50 slap on the wruiat.  IMO the actions of the PPC were totatally unreasonable whatever the D may have said.  I think that the PPC got off very lightly.

These companies are a menace to residents and as a landlord I would do everything in my power to get them out of residential car parks, they deter renters and depress resale values.  Read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927955/my-management-company-wants-to-bring-in-cpm/p1

bargepole

Since this saga, he has written to the MA, withdrawing permission for Link to monitor his parking spaces.

They have replied, confirming that Link will no longer be required to monitor parking in those two spaces.