New Generation Parking Management Ltd/DCBL - County Court Claim Form

Nate_J

Hi everyone,

Firstly I just want to say that even without posting myself about this previously, the support on this part of the forum has been superb and easy to follow with regards to knowing the process and not to panic. A little research on here goes a long way in understanding what we're up against, so thanks to everyone for their input, the information has been invaluable.

I hadn't posted previously, as I didn't feel the need to until the time arrived where I received a claim form, which was 13th Sept. I followed the AOS guide previously and now working on my defence to finally submit it tomorrow.

I understand the nature of these charges are pretty much the same, but I'll provide some context of where the charge has derived from. I lived at a rented apartment block that had on site parking, and of the limited spaces available, the spaces were all allocated to an apartment with no access to any visitor bays etc. A person doing some repair works in my apartment parked in my space, however I needed to let them into the apartment for them to do what they needed. I therefore left my vehicle unattended within what was generally a large turning area (which is located within the car park area) for perhaps less than 3 minutes, to my surprise a nice letter from new generation parking came through with images of my unattended vehicle and a charge.

I have found a case similar to mine, where the defendant was also a tenant with use of their own parking space, so here goes my defence:

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 

3. The Defendant parked temporarily, outside of marked bays at their rented property due to a vehicle blocking their allocated parking space on the afternoon of 15/09/2019

4. The Defendant lived in a rented property, their Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement does not state any requirement to comply with the terms and conditions of any parking company. The Defendant claims primacy of contract, they already have a right to park that cannot be altered or removed by the Claimant, who was not party to the AST Agreement. (This was established in cases like: In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.) 

5. The signs at the site are unlit, of small size, with very small, i.e. unreadable, font size and partly obstructed. (In Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site and the other signage was not visible.) 

6. In case a contract as claimed by the Claimant should exist, which the Defendant highly doubts, the Defendant claims frustration of contract, as the Claimant failed to keep the allocated parking space free and due to their failure the Defendant was prevented from parking there.

In terms of point 6, it's true that the parking firm failed to keep my space free, however I did know why the vehicle was there and essentially gave them permission to park there. Although the parking firm did not know of this, and I can put a pretty safe bet on that the owner of the vehicle parked in my bay at the time wouldn't have received a charge for it.

KeithP

Nate_J said:

I hadn't posted previously, as I didn't feel the need to until the time arrived where I received a claim form, which was 13th Sept. I followed the AOS guide previously and now working on my defence to finally submit it tomorrow.

You may have a few more days than you think to file a Defence.

 You say you received the Claim on 13th September, but what is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Nate_J

KeithP said:

Nate_J said:

I hadn't posted previously, as I didn't feel the need to until the time arrived where I received a claim form, which was 13th Sept. I followed the AOS guide previously and now working on my defence to finally submit it tomorrow.

You may have a few more days than you think to file a Defence.

 You say you received the Claim on 13th September, but what is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, the issue date on the form is the 13th September.

I filed the AOS on the 21st September

KeithP

Nate_J said:

KeithP said:

Nate_J said:

I hadn't posted previously, as I didn't feel the need to until the time arrived where I received a claim form, which was 13th Sept. I followed the AOS guide previously and now working on my defence to finally submit it tomorrow.

You may have a few more days than you think to file a Defence.

 You say you received the Claim on 13th September, but what is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, the issue date on the form is the 13th September.

I filed the AOS on the 21st September

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are working on it.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

I would not include 6 and would not hide the truth!

Say what really happened and that the D was merely letting an authorised trader into the flat and to allow access, the D had to reverse temporarily out of the allocated bay, purely to let the trader park there, then to hand him a permit and let him in the door to the flat.

In those minutes, a lurking, unknown person took photos on their phone behind the resident's back and unseen by them or the trader.  This 'ticketer' did not actually issue any 'PCN' and was almost certainly another resident or possibly an untrained rogue employee hoping for a financial 'bounty' per photo (which this notorious ex-clamping firm advertised they paid to self-ticketers).

This is an unfair, non-transparent, predatory and incentivised approach that the Government has stated is to be banned in the new incoming Statutory Code of Practice because it breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for 'prominence' of a consumer notice (i.e. the breach is the deliberate hiding and lack of a timely PCN issued to the driver on the spot). This conduct also breached the IPC Code of Practice at the time, because no grace period was allowed.  The photos span some two minutes flat and the car was not 'parked' nor left for any period of time and the Defendant would undoubtedly have been seen swapping the two vehicles.  This minor 'vicissitude' is on all fours with the findings of HHJ Harris QC in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson.

Nate_J

Coupon-mad said:

I would not include 6 and would not hide the truth!

Say what really happened and that the D was merely letting an authorised trader into the flat and to allow access, the D had to reverse temporarily out of the allocated bay, purely to let the trader park there, then to hand him a permit and let him in the door to the flat.

In those minutes, a lurking, unknown person took photos on their phone behind the resident's back and unseen by them or the trader.  This 'ticketer' did not actually issue any 'PCN' and was almost certainly another resident or possibly an untrained rogue employee hoping for a financial 'bounty' per photo (which this notorious ex-clamping firm advertised they paid to self-ticketers).

This is an unfair, non-transparent, predatory and incentivised approach that the Government has stated is to be banned in the new incoming Statutory Code of Practice because it breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for 'prominence' of a consumer notice (i.e. the breach is the deliberate hiding and lack of a timely PCN issued to the driver on the spot). This conduct also breached the IPC Code of Practice at the time, because no grace period was allowed.  The photos span some two minutes flat and the car was not 'parked' nor left for any period of time and the Defendant would undoubtedly have been seen swapping the two vehicles.  This minor 'vicissitude' is on all fours with the findings of HHJ Harris QC in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson.

Thanks, I will remove that as it does bend the reality somewhat.

Thanks for also providing these other statements which I can add into the defence. I don't think there's really much more to it that I can think of adding in that will be of more benefit.

In anyone's experience, is this a solid defence claim that a judge would be in favour of? I know that question is going to be difficult to answer as it will completely depend on the judge and circumstances. I just don't want something to rustle my feathers when the time comes, as this type of thing is completely out of territory in my private and professional career, so I've no idea. One thing's for sure, I won't get cold feet and back down not matter what the parking firm or their solicitor 'offer' as I have seen the reoccurrence from DCBL claims as of late, and it angers me that they can get away with it.

Coupon-mad

Yes - extremely solid. This one is easy to answer in our experience. You'll win.

Jopson really helps as it's persuasive on the lower courts.  HHJ Harris QC's opinion has clout.

So does the CRA 2015. Statute law.

Courts must consider fairness of contractual terms. Given the predatory nature of issuing this charge and that the current Code of Practice says there must be a minimum consideration (used to be called 'observation') grace period of at least 5 minutes before ticketing, the Claimant's case looks to be fatally flawed.

Nate_J

This is now my edited defence:

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 

3. The Defendant parked temporarily, outside of marked bays at their rented property due to a vehicle within their allocated parking space on the afternoon of 15/01/2019.  

4. The Defendant was merely letting an authorised trader into the flat and to allow access, the Defendant was temporarily outside of the allocated bay, purely to let the trader park there and let them in the door to the rented apartment. 

5. In the minutes the vehicle was unattended for, a lurking, unknown person took photos on their phone behind the resident's back and unseen by them or the trader.  This 'ticketer' did not actually issue any 'PCN' and was almost certainly another resident or possibly an untrained rogue employee hoping for a financial 'bounty' per photo (which this notorious ex-clamping firm advertised they paid to self-ticketers). 

6. This is an unfair, non-transparent, predatory and incentivised approach that the Government has stated is to be banned in the new incoming Statutory Code of Practice because it breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for 'prominence' of a consumer notice (i.e. the breach is the deliberate hiding and lack of a timely PCN issued to the driver on the spot). This conduct also breached the IPC Code of Practice at the time, because no grace period was allowed.  This minor 'vicissitude' is on all fours with the findings of HHJ Harris QC in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson. 

7. The Defendant lived in a rented property, their Tenancy Agreement does not state any requirement to comply with the terms and conditions of any parking company. The Defendant claims primacy of contract, they already have a right to park that cannot be altered or removed by the Claimant, who was not party to the Tenancy Agreement. (This was established in cases like: In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] and in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.) 

8. The signs at the site are of small size, with very small, i.e. unreadable, font size and partly obstructed. (In Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site and the other signage was not visible.) 

I hope this now looks pretty solid still, if anyone believes there is anything missing or contradicting, please let me know. But I feel happy that it covers what happened, it is pretty basic, but again I'm not sure anything further will benefit.

Coupon-mad

Swap 6 and 7 round, because that's the only reason I used the short citation 'Jopson'(because I knew you'd already used the full citation higher up).

And remove 'for'. It's not grammatical to say 'unattended for'.

Nate_J

As an update to my this thread - I've received a date for the hearing and my witness statement is due which I am in the process of drafting up, following the same philosophy as the template shown on the newbies thread and also some other ones that have been posted up on the forum. The claimant has also filed and sent their witness statement over.

Just wanted to see if I can clarify in my situation whether to include the following in my witness statement:

1. In my defence letter, I mentioned about the poor signage etc, however the car park in question was a residents only (of which I was a resident and had one allocated parking bay). Should I still draw attention to this, even though I resided there? I also note that the witness statement refers to a letter I was sent regarding entrance signage regarding the parking terms, however this is not the case. At the time of the issue of the charge, there was no such signage at the entrance to the car park or any indication that it is private parking until the unintelligible signage appears within the car park itself.

2. Grace period; Having done a bit of searching online, BPA members should provide a grace period of 10 minutes before issuing a parking charge notice. I do however note that the vehicle was not left within an allocated parking bay, so the grace period is possibly exempt in this instance?

KeithP

When is your witness statement and evidence filing deadline?

I ask because claimants often/usually leave leave theirs to the last minute.
Make sure your witness statement and evidence isn't filed and served late.