My parking bay - County Court claim received!

Coupon-mad

Counterclaims are hard to win and require a fee and we only have a few examples here by @ellaro9 and @Nosy as well as a recent one by someone whose username escapes this reply because I don't want to type the word in their name!

Quitto

What does that mean in some defence examples? Material location. My parking space bay number?

"The claim against me relates to parking charges that allegedly occurred at the material location referred to as ‘XXX’. I have, since XXX, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to XXX at this location (Exhibit A1 – Lease)."

Jenni_D

Material location = the place/space where the PCN was issued. It's just legal(ish) speak

Quitto

I've just realised that I only have my original lease when I purchased a share in shared ownership property (I have staircased to 100% since).

Can I use it to support my claims in the defence?  It appears that solicitors did not provide me with any updated paperwork when I staircased.

Fruitcake

Contact the solicitors and instruct them to supply you with the documents to show you are now the owner of the property. Does that include the parking space, meaning you now own that as well?

Land Registry entries show something as small as a parking space, and a copy of that would be useful as long as it has been updated to show you are the owner, or you have the paper trail to prove you are now the owner.

You should get your MP onboard, and ask them to also contact Michael Gove MP and Neil O'Brien MP at the department for levelling up. They need to know that demands for money with menaces are being made against people who park in their own parking space.

Quitto

Fruitcake said:

Contact the solicitors and instruct them to supply you with the documents to show you are now the owner of the property. Does that include the parking space, meaning you now own that as well?

Land Registry entries show something as small as a parking space, and a copy of that would be useful as long as it has been updated to show you are the owner, or you have the paper trail to prove you are now the owner.

You should get your MP onboard, and ask them to also contact Michael Gove MP and Neil O'Brien MP at the department for levelling up. They need to know that demands for money with menaces are being made against people who park in their own parking space.

I have my parking included in the original lease and I own it. Solicitors don't answer phone or emails, they are pretty bad.

Do you think I could proceed with the original lease?

Quitto

Just received a confirmation from the solicitors that the original lease I have still stands and have not been updated.

Quitto

Please could you review my defence and make any suggestions? Thanks!


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at the material location referred as ‘xxxxxxx’. The Defendant has, since xx December 2013, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to xxxxxxx with an allocated parking space as indicated in the lease. At some point in 2018-2019 after signing the lease, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the property.

4. The Defendant had been issued with a valid parking permit in January 2019. At the time of receiving the Parking Charge Notice, the Defendant’s parking permit had been accidentally left in a glovebox compartment of the vehicle after a long trip.

5. As specified in Schedule 1 of the Defendant's lease “the Premises” demised to the Defendant by the Landlord consist of “xxxxxx on the xxxx floor of the building shown edged red on the attached plan and the parking space edge red on the attached parking space plan”.

6. The parking bays at the building contain numbered parking spaces, the legal titles to the majority are held by apartment leaseholders, with the remainder allocated for use by Blue Badge holders. The Defendant’s parking bay is number 4 as indicated on the parking allocation plan included within the lease.

7. Under the terms of the Defendant’s lease, there are no specific references made to the conditions for use of the demised parking spaces. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. No written communications from the Landlord regarding any variations to the lease have been received by the Defendant which suggests that the only parking restrictions applicable to the Defendant are as written in the lease.

8. Clause 4.2 of the lease states that: “To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts and security of the Building and including (for the avoidance of doubt) regulations as to the manner of use of any car parking space or visitors car parking spaces and the nature of any vehicle which may be parked thereon.”. This Clause specifically excludes “the Premises” leased to the Defendant and, therefore, the definition of “parking space” is contradictory.

9. The contract for provision of services between the Claimant and the Landlord cannot be considered “reasonable regulations” under the above Clause 4.2 of the lease. The Defendant has not been a party to this agreement nor consulted during the Claimant’s appointment process. As such, the Claimant’s activities within the parking bay 4 at xxxxx are considered to be in breach of the Defendant’s exclusive rights of free use of “the Premises” leased to them for a period of 99 years.

10. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay 4, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether expressed, implied, or by conduct. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

11. The Claimant, or Landlord, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

12. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to “No Unauthorised Parking”. The Defendant’s vehicle clearly was “authorised” as the Defendant had been issued with a valid parking permit via post to the Defendant’s registered address at xxxxxxxxxx by the Claimant. The subsequent Parking Charge Notice and any other correspondence issued by the Claimant and their representatives had been posted to the same address, so the Claimant was clearly aware that the vehicle was “authorised” to park in the parking bay 4.

13. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'No Unauthorised Parking”. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

14. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

15. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

16. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:
Date:

Coupon-mad

You seem to have omitted the entire bottom half of the template defence.  By using another defence for the facts, don't lose the remainder of the template.

And I'd remove this as it doesn't make sense in the statement about the managing agent:

after signing the lease

1505grandad

Just a thought  -  because lease does not specify showing a permit it was therefore displayed only as a matter of courtesy so perhaps amend para 4:-

..........the Defendant’s parking permit, which had, previously, only been displayed as a matter of courtesy, had been accidentally left in a glovebox compartment of the vehicle after a long trip.