£3000 County Court Claim from Park Direct UK

Johnersh

The particulars are inadequate insofar as they fail to explain what term(s) were breached on each date.

So if you parked your car sideways one day, that might be an obstruction and the next might be a permit. 

C has to clarify that, because there are potentially multiple points to respond to. This is a 3k claim, it's not good enough to say they ran out of room. It requires proper particularisation in a detailed document. 

CluelessDefendant

Johnersh said:

The particulars are inadequate insofar as they fail to explain what term(s) were breached on each date.

So if you parked your car sideways one day, that might be an obstruction and the next might be a permit. 

C has to clarify that, because there are potentially multiple points to respond to. This is a 3k claim, it's not good enough to say they ran out of room. It requires proper particularisation in a detailed document. 

Thanks, I'll be sure to include it in my defence. 

Just a quick question for you guys, there is no mention of parking ToCs in the contract for our rent. So I have another question, what if the claimant makes the argument that I agreed to the ToCs just by choosing to park on that land? What would be my counter to that?

CluelessDefendant

Also to clear up any confusion if it occurs, we rent on a housing estate, we are not leaseholders. Not sure if that changes anything but thought it was worth putting it out there.

Mouse007

CluelessDefendant said:

Just a quick question for you guys, there is no mention of parking ToCs in the contract for our rent. So I have another question, what if the claimant makes the argument that I agreed to the ToCs just by choosing to park on that land? What would be my counter to that?

I gave you the answer to that above

Mouse007 said:

You had a right to park. Granted by your parent’s lease.

No one can tool along afterwards and offer you the right to park. You already had that right.

No one can impose conditions on that right which you already had.

No one can say there are additional rules which are not in the first contract - your parent’s lease.

You need to get your head around Primacy of Contract

Coupon-mad

CluelessDefendant said:

Also to clear up any confusion if it occurs, we rent on a housing estate, we are not leaseholders. Not sure if that changes anything but thought it was worth putting it out there.

They will certainly try to say you agreed to terms on signage by parking there.  That will be their case.  But it is well worth fighting; the claim is exaggerated, at best, and you have rights as a tenant.

Read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

and the residential defence examples linked in the NEWBIES thread.

CluelessDefendant

Hi guys, please see my rough defence as of now, I'll be speaking to my housing agent tomorrow, and will make changes if required. The rest will be as of template..

1.      The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into – by conduct or otherwise – whereby it was agreed to pay a parking charge.

2.      The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the material dates that the vehicle was driven but liability for the parking charge is denied.

The facts as known to the Defendant;

3.      It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking terms of conditions or was not permitted to park in the locations specified as the Tenancy Agreement grants the Defendant the right to use communal areas without specifying any uses or conditions.

4.      Under this Tenancy the Defendant’s contractual rights and obligations are with the landowner and no other party.

5.      The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases if this matter proceeds to trial.

6.      Accordingly, it is denied that:

6.1   there was any agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant

6.2   there was any obligation to display a permit; and

6.3   the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim.

7.      The Claimant issued time-limited permits for no justified reason (a permit should be continuous for the life of the tenancy) and then failed to remind the tenants to renew.  To any reasonable independent interpretation, this bears the hallmarks of a scam arrangement that was bound to unfairly catch out authorised drivers.  Several neighbours were similarly tricked and penalised to the tune of hundreds if not thousands of pounds each.

8.      In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

9.      In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

The defendant respectfully would like to draw the courts attention noting that:

10.   The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; or (c) the alleged loss.

11.    The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.

12.   The Particulars appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

13.   The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form

14.   In the opinion of the Defendant, it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied.

15.   In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbent upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3

16.   The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

AND UPON no further particulars having been filed

AND UPON it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset

AND UPON the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation.

IT IS REQUESTED that: -

17.    The Claim is struck out.

CluelessDefendant

Johnersh said:

The particulars are inadequate insofar as they fail to explain what term(s) were breached on each date.

So if you parked your car sideways one day, that might be an obstruction and the next might be a permit. 

C has to clarify that, because there are potentially multiple points to respond to. This is a 3k claim, it's not good enough to say they ran out of room. It requires proper particularisation in a detailed document. 

so in that case I only use the latter part of my defence? 

Coupon-mad

No.

But use Johnersh's more concise words and slot them into the Template Defence...which you haven't used.

I can see you've found the old residential defence example in the NEWBIES thread and just used that, which was not our intention.  Parts if it can be used but it's got an old Statement of Truth and misses out stuff that's in the Template Defence we advised you to use.

CluelessDefendant

Coupon-mad said:

No.

But use Johnersh's more concise words and slot them into the Template Defence...which you haven't used.

I can see you've found the old residential defence example in the NEWBIES thread and just used that, which was not our intention.  Parts if it can be used but it's got an old Statement of Truth and misses out stuff that's in the Template Defence we advised you to use.

Apologies, I was using that template (I think, the one last edited in May 2022) but left it out, maybe it'll be easier if I post the whole defence in here. 

Left it out as in it's in my defence that I'll be sending out, just not included here when asking for feedback 

Coupon-mad

But paragraph 1 tells us this isn't facts slotted into the template defence, because that para 1 isn't the one from the 2022 Template Defence.