My parking bay - County Court claim received!

1505grandad

"The ticket was issued by Parking Control Management (PCM) ..."

A heads-up  -  you will see that in the above mentioned WS examples they refer to the BPA CoP because they are BPA AoS members  -  your claimant is an IPC AoS member so you should be using/quoting the relevant version of the IPC CoP. (See the first Q&A list in the first post at the start of the NEWBIES thread for clarification re logos)

Quitto

Thank you.

The solicitors state in their WS the following: " The Claimant submits that the sum claimed is not exaggerated nor does it amount to a penalty per Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] on the basis that the Claimant has a legitimate interest in the efficient operation of the site, the charge is not exorbitant or unconscionable or extravagantly disproportionate (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services v Damen Ward [2019]). The Claimant's legitimate interest was to manage the car park and as the sum is neither "exorbitant or unconscionable, it cannot be considered a penalty."

Do you think submitting numerous pictures of vehicles blocking refuse vehicle access along with loading diagram help dismiss their claim of legitimate interest in efficient operation of the site?

Quitto

They also claim my defence is a generic template that can be found on internet. Isn't it telling how common this behaviour is that defence "templates" are widely available? 

Coupon-mad

Quitto said:

Thank you.

The solicitors state in their WS the following: " The Claimant submits that the sum claimed is not exaggerated nor does it amount to a penalty per Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] on the basis that the Claimant has a legitimate interest in the efficient operation of the site, the charge is not exorbitant or unconscionable or extravagantly disproportionate (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services v Damen Ward [2019]). The Claimant's legitimate interest was to manage the car park and as the sum is neither "exorbitant or unconscionable, it cannot be considered a penalty."

Do you think submitting numerous pictures of vehicles blocking refuse vehicle access along with loading diagram help dismiss their claim of legitimate interest in efficient operation of the site?

You don't need to rebut court cases they haven't appended (anyway, VCS v Ward is already rebutted in the Template Defence if you used it).

I don't think pics of other vehicles help your case and I wouldn't distract the Judge.

Quitto

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think pics of other vehicles help your case and I wouldn't distract the Judge.

I don't know what else to use as my evidence apart from the lease in that case. It is my bay and my car. They know it, I know it, they know I know it, and yet this farce goes ahead.

I'm not moving anywhere with this, spent too much time and ready to just ignore that hearing and pay whatever they ask to. 

Quitto

Basically, their whole case is built upon this clause in my lease: "The Defendant's allegation that they have an automatic and unfettered right to park by way of their lease is denied. The Claimant obtained a copy of the lease, which clearly stipulates that the leaseholder must "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""

Jenni_D

What exactly does your lease say? If you have an allocated, marked bay then it is not Common Parts, so their rebuttal is nonsense.

This exact scenario has occurred here before.

Quitto

Jenni_D said:

What exactly does your lease say? If you have an allocated, marked bay then it is not Common Parts, so their rebuttal is nonsense.

This exact scenario has occurred here before.

They quote exactly what it says. However, I argue that the Clause specifically excludes “the Premises” leased to the Defendant which constitutes Flat xxx shown edged red on the attached plan and the parking space edge red on the attached parking space plan” and, therefore, the definition of “parking space” is contradictory.

KeithP

So what are these "such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord" has made without agreement? 

Quitto

I know there is nothing reasonable about it.

Do I need to write about the events on the day and following that? I am not sure this is relevant in my case. There is nothing to say apart from that I was issued a ticket and ignored it.