Small claims

KeithP

Fireman987 said:

Court forms say 'Driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not'.  Well I didn't ever agree unless they mean by parking it is assumed agreement if you don't abide.

You can forget that point.

The allegation is that by parking the driver agreed to the terms of the contract.

Those contract terms are the terms on the signs.

Almost certainly there is a term on the signs stating something like "if the driver doesn't park in accordance with the rules then he agrees to pay £nn within 28 days...".

Fireman987

Cheers, I thought that might be the case.  Any chance my defence on not being able to physically fit car in bay will be any good?  Or the signs were not readable in the dark. O r the parking company didn't give residents a printed list of rules. Or that in the previous 16 years I have lived here I've never had a pcn, or anything similar that has been ruled on before...many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes your defence is strong.  Added to the fact that you've lived there for 16 years with an allocated bay and have an unfettered (possibly 'exclusive' depending upon what your lease says?) right to park...primacy of contract.

As per the residential defence examples already written for everyone to crib from, in the NEWBIES thread.

What the heck are the leaseholders thinking of, agreeing to the imposition of ex-clampers OPS, and agreeing to a permit scheme that's designed to catch residents out and that none of you need?

Agreeing to this (assuming you own the flat and were consulted?) is interfering with your rights and easements, and probably breaches the grant of parking in your lease.

Fireman987

It's not an exclusive spot...first come first served, theres 100 flats and prob 40 bays, but the one I was parked in is the only one that doesn't have a bay next to it. Also private rental property, not owned. 
Parking bays came in many years ago to help with iffy parking by residents, not sure exactly when it was. 
The current parking company ops took over control prob Nov 2021 after a few weeks/months of nobody. We all knew it was happening, but not exactly when. 
Should we have had a hard copy of rules, where rules are displayed they aren't particularly easy to read, and impossible in the dark, as it was then. 
Obviously I knew I had to be in the bay but physically couldn't get there cos if obstruction, does law unfortunately was the warden ticketed me after obstruction was moved, so didn't see one...there were no other bays available when I parked so I did what I had done before when the same thing happened, parked & waited for obstruction to move & then move car.

Coupon-mad

Nothing has changed about my advice except the fact it's not an allocated bay.
You have primacy of contract. See the example residential defence wording already linked for everyone in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

I've no idea why none of the residents objected to the imposition of money-grabbing ex-clampers OPS.  I would have moved out if it were me. Residents were aware it was coming in: that was the time to say "no" to the Managing Agents and point out the misery OPS inflict on residents.

The residents are their target in my experience.

You do not need this crap threat operating at your home. You don't need a PPC at all.

Fireman987

Thanks. With regards to accepting a parking company, obviously we had no choice (except leaving) not was it ever a part of tenancy agreements. Problem.is the availability of private rentals does limit options 're moving, not much around so people elect to stay with what they have. I will check out the defence you mention. Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Is this a car park in Sussex? They are pariahs in this area.

Fireman987

Yeah....and everyone says the same about them.  Actually, 're charges can they add £50 for legal fees? Also given that they chased it via dcbl bailiffs before court, is that ok given it was a dispute - not a debt, all it did was add £100 to the cost which presumably is designed to make someone give in.

KeithP

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

Umkomaas

Fireman987 said:

Yeah....and everyone says the same about them.  Actually, 're charges can they add £50 for legal fees? Also given that they chased it via dcbl bailiffs before court, is that ok given it was a dispute - not a debt, all it did was add £100 to the cost which presumably is designed to make someone give in.

That's a standard, capped fee to go towards their cost for any solicitor assistance.