Parking ticket

danbevan86

I have submitted the Acknowledgment of Service now. I will start writing my defence, would it be a good idea to produce a witness statement too? Is there advice on this? and who is it preferable to have a witness statement from? Partner? friend? etc thanks

Coupon-mad

Read the Template Defence first 12 steps, then read IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

WS stage does not come yet.

Fruitcake

Use the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES sticky Announcement, and base your defence on the template defence sticky Announcement thread. Amend paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case and post them here for checking. Note that it should be written in the third person, so refer to defendant and claimant, not me, myself, or I.

Para 2 should simply say something about you being the registered keeper and driver, but liability is denied.

Para 3 will be about your unfettered right to park, primacy of contract from your lease/AST/property rental agreement, and right to quiet enjoyment.
Include quotes from your agreement that show there is no requirement to show a permit. No contract can be formed with a company that was not a party to your rental agreement since there is no offer and can be no consideration because the PPC have offered nothing that you do not already have by right.

The witness statement comes later in the process. It is your statement and will be used to support and expand on points included in your defence. Photos of the first sign you posted above, and extracts of your lease etcetera will be included as exhibits/evidence.

Meanwhile you should complain to the landowner and your landlord if different (the person from whom you rent the property) and your MP.

danbevan86

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that at any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 30/06/2022. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as . The Defendant has, since 07/05/2021, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to  at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.

5.1. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. 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.

8.2. 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. 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.

9. 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.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £70 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.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £170, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

12. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

12.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

………………………………………………………. (Defendant)

……………………… (Date)

danbevan86

Please could you take a look through my defence statement as shown above and let me know if you think that will be ok

KeithP

In para 3 you say that you've had a lease since 7th May 2021.
You also state that the MA contracted with VCS at some point.
Can you clarify 'at some point'?
Was it before or after 7th May 2021?

I don't need to know that but a Judge might need to know whether VCS were operating there before you moved in.

danbevan86

Im unclear at what date the MA contacted VCS but it was at some point after I moved in on 7th May 2021 and before I was given a parking ticket on 30th June 2022.

danbevan86

Also to be clear there are two seperate companies involved. One is the company who manage the whole building that the flats belong to, the other company is the estate agents who I have my tenancy arranged with. These are two seperate companies and it is the company that manage all the flats who made contact with VCS to manage the car park.

Coupon-mad

Mismanage the car park...!

danbevan86

Coupon-mad said:

Mismanage the car park...!

Absolutely!!!