8 PCN's from Premier Park passed to RDP...

manooo

I have checked my AST, there is nothing regarding quiet enjoyment or and the parking bit is very vague as posted below.
 

B789

manooo said:

... Not sure what else to add? there are 4 signs in the car park all unobstructed and clear, do you think I can add something from my AST about it not mentioning permits? do I provide proof

Of course you have to add something about no requirement in your lease that mentions permits, let alone having to display one. If you did display a permit, it was out of courtesy, not obligation.

There is no point in mentioning that you knew the permit had slipped off the dashboard. Unless your landlord changed your lease and now requires you to pay a third party for access you your parking space for £100/day, then you will be putting the PPC to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner and that the landowner followed the strict requirements of the Landlord and Tennant Act 1987, Section 35 (a) or (b).

Have you contacted the landowner/landlord and asked them to get the PCN cancelled? If they were stupid enough to pay for one or more of your other PCNs, that is their own stupid fault. It is obvious that in their contract with their agent, the PPC, they are the monkeys and the PPC is the organ grinder. Perhaps point that out to them and remind them about your primacy of contract and if they did not change the lease, as per the L&TA, they had better get their act together and get the rogue PPC off your back as they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents. 

manooo

B789 said:

manooo said:

... Not sure what else to add? there are 4 signs in the car park all unobstructed and clear, do you think I can add something from my AST about it not mentioning permits? do I provide proof

Of course you have to add something about no requirement in your lease that mentions permits, let alone having to display one. If you did display a permit, it was out of courtesy, not obligation.

There is no point in mentioning that you knew the permit had slipped off the dashboard. Unless your landlord changed your lease and now requires you to pay a third party for access you your parking space for £100/day, then you will be putting the PPC to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner and that the landowner followed the strict requirements of the Landlord and Tennant Act 1987, Section 35 (a) or (b).

Have you contacted the landowner/landlord and asked them to get the PCN cancelled? If they were stupid enough to pay for one or more of your other PCNs, that is their own stupid fault. It is obvious that in their contract with their agent, the PPC, they are the monkeys and the PPC is the organ grinder. Perhaps point that out to them and remind them about your primacy of contract and if they did not change the lease, as per the L&TA, they had better get their act together and get the rogue PPC off your back as they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents. 

Thanks, ive removed the permit slipping off and have gone with the below after reviewing a few similar cases on the forum that applies here. Please let me know what you think so far?

And the Landowner refused to get involved with my legal issue, I will have to send in another complaint but be even more pressing this time and try get higher ups involved.

Weirdly enough Premier Park is no longer managing my car park and there is now another company managing who I can't remember the name of but thankfully no more tickets as they seem quiet.

........... DEFENCE.........

3. The Defendant is a resident of the block of flats where the car park is situated. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents via the leasehold or leased separately from XX Ltd who manage the leasing on behalf of the XX (landowner).  The Defendant pays a considerable amount per month for a parking bay in this car park which they use on a daily basis without encountering any issues.

4. On the 23rd of September 2022 the Claimant's saw it fit to issue a parking charge notice for the reason listed as 'No Permit on Display'. 

6. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles in section “6” of the lease titled “Behaviour – Your Responsibilities", under clause “P” & “Q” which the Defendant notes that none of these conditions of the lease were breached.

6.1 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.

7. 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 express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, 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 Leaseholder is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

9. Despite the fact residents shouldn't need to display a permit due to the lack of terms of this requirement in the lease, there are issues with the signage the Claimant uses which are:

- The amount of the PCN (£100) is in small font, and not prominent (Lord Denning's "Red Hand" rule)

- The sign is forbidding and you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden. If you're not permitted to park there without a valid permit, then you cannot contract to park there for an arbitrary sum

- The location number on their sign being displayed nearest to parking space XX is blank and is therefore invalid

9.2. 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.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £84.12 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

manooo

Before I submit, please if anyone can give it the once over, thank you 

3. The Defendant is a resident of the block of flats where the car park is situated. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents via the leasehold or leased separately from the XX (XX Ltd) who manage the leasing on behalf of the XX (landowner). The Defendant pays a considerable amount per month for a parking bay in this car park which they use on a daily basis without encountering any issues.

4. In the Defendant’s case they lease the parking space from XX via the agent XX Ltd with this particular Park Space agreement commencing on 13th September 2022.

5. On the 23rd of September 2022 the Claimant's saw it fit to issue a parking charge notice for the reason listed by the Claimant as 'No Permit on Display'.

6. Under the terms of the Defendant's AST lease, references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles in section “6” of the AST lease titled “Behaviour – Your Responsibilities", under clause “P” & “Q” which the Defendant notes that:

(i). 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.

(ii). Under the terms in the Parking Space Licence lease, there are again no conditions requiring the same as stated in section 6(i) of this defence.

7. 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 express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, 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 Leaseholder is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

10. Despite the fact residents shouldn't need to display a permit due to the lack of terms of this requirement in the lease, there is the issue with the signage the Claimant uses that:

- The sign is forbidding and you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden. If you're not permitted to park there without a valid permit, then you cannot contract to park there for an arbitrary sum

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, have added an additional sum of £134.12 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper.  Further, the Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance.

Coupon-mad

 

"my counter claim is"

You are not doing a counterclaim. 

Get rid of 11 which makes no sense and is already stated later in the Template Defence anyway.

Replace it with this (as 11 onwards) about the extortionate interest, assuming YOUR claim says 10.25%:

11.  Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. The Defendant has discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds a made-up and enhanced 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%) and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which together adds hundreds to each claim.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.

12.  The Defendant trusts that (if the claim is not struck out at Allocation stage, which the Defendant believes it should be) the Judge will address the wholly unreasonable inflation of Gladstones claims in their final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction this bulk litigator so that they cease this abuse.

13.  The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:


13.1.  Similarly, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning:

(Then continue with 4 onwards from the Template Defence, suitably re-numbered).

B789

Before you rush to file your defence, what is the "issue date" on your claim form?

manooo

Coupon-mad said:

 

"my counter claim is"

You are not doing a counterclaim. 

Get rid of 11 which makes no sense and is already stated later in the Template Defence anyway.

Replace it with this (as 11 onwards) about the extortionate interest, assuming YOUR claim says 10.25%:

11.  Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. The Defendant has discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds a made-up and enhanced 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%) and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which together adds hundreds to each claim.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.

12.  The Defendant trusts that (if the claim is not struck out at Allocation stage, which the Defendant believes it should be) the Judge will address the wholly unreasonable inflation of Gladstones claims in their final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction this bulk litigator so that they cease this abuse.

13.  The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage.  At the Manchester Court on 2023,

TBC - give me a minute 

Thanks will remove part 11 and substitute as the claim form does say 10.25% interest

manooo

B789 said:

Before you rush to file your defence, what is the "issue date" on your claim form?

Issue date 15 August, AOS was sent 1 Sept received on 4th Sept. That means I have 14 from 1st September?

I know, shouldn't have left it this late but have been very busy 

B789

With an issue date of 15th August, you have until 4 pm on Monday 18th September to file your defence. Don't rush it if you are not 100% ready.

As your AoS was filed in time, you have 33 days, plus any weekend/bank-holiday days from the issue date. Issue date 15th August, served date 20th August. AoS deadline date is 3rd September (actually 4 pm on the 4th of September as the 3rd is a Sunday. 28 days from the service date is 17th September which is a Sunday. Therefore your defence deadline is 4 pm Monday 18th September.

manooo

Coupon-mad said:

 

"my counter claim is"

You are not doing a counterclaim. 

Get rid of 11 which makes no sense and is already stated later in the Template Defence anyway.

Replace it with this (as 11 onwards) about the extortionate interest, assuming YOUR claim says 10.25%:

11.  Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. The Defendant has discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds a made-up and enhanced 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%) and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which together adds hundreds to each claim.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.

12.  The Defendant trusts that (if the claim is not struck out at Allocation stage, which the Defendant believes it should be) the Judge will address the wholly unreasonable inflation of Gladstones claims in their final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction this bulk litigator so that they cease this abuse.

13.  The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:


13.1.  Similarly, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning:

(Then continue with 4 onwards from the Template Defence, suitably re-numbered).

Thank you so much for your input, this gives me hope  

Am I to add the images as part of the defence or just the written text?? 

Also I wouldn't be breaching GDPR rules by citing claim information from other defendants? This is my first time defending a court claim so its all new to me.

You've been very helpful, when you get a chance if you can let me know my friend