£3000 County Court Claim from Park Direct UK

CluelessDefendant

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Yep, I was trying to be original, I'll go back to the template

CluelessDefendant

Coupon-mad said:

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.

1.      The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

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 adequately 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.      It should be noted that, in the areas where the “terms of conditions” were broken, there was insufficient signage, which was placed in elevated unlit sections of buildings which was impossible to read.

9.      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.

10.   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.

11.   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. 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”. 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. 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.'"

12.   The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.

13.   Rest of template.

Does this look better? I'm still going to call our housing officer tomorrow and hopefully get my hands on our signed contract. I have the most recent rent update letter (Our rent was recently changed) and there's no mention of parking on it? Is that worth mentioning in the defence?

Galloglass

Tenancies are like any other contract. Over time they can be varied, either by agreement or by default. 

It would pay to check with the Housing Association the history of any changes to the tenancies on site as though you may have an "old -style" agreement, it might have been amended and your parents are not aware or haven't told you about changes.

Would be very surprised if there were no adjustments to the tenancy over this longer period. You (actually your parents) don't need to be specific about what has been asked, just to be updated such as asking for the latest version. 

Le_Kirk

3.      It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking terms of or 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 terms or conditions.

Would that read better as above?

Coupon-mad

What you have for para 11 is better followed by:


12. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.  The particulars are embarrassing insofar as they fail to explain precisely what term(s) were breached and on which date(s).  In the context of a residential car park these 'PCNs' could relate to any number of alleged 'contravention codes' with each separate allegation requiring a response.  The Defendant is wholly disadvantaged if they are now forced to wait in limbo to learn of the precise allegations, dates and details until just two weeks before a hearing, when ambushed with this serial Claimant's generic template prolix Witness Statement.

13.  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”.

14.   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.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim with this many allegations requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

15. 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.'"  No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

16.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and 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) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is invited to strike this claim out.

CluelessDefendant

Galloglass said:

Tenancies are like any other contract. Over time they can be varied, either by agreement or by default. 

It would pay to check with the Housing Association the history of any changes to the tenancies on site as though you may have an "old -style" agreement, it might have been amended and your parents are not aware or haven't told you about changes.

Would be very surprised if there were no adjustments to the tenancy over this longer period. You (actually your parents) don't need to be specific about what has been asked, just to be updated such as asking for the latest version. 

We do get changes, but my parents are adamant we never signed off on anything with regards to parking...

Le_Kirk said:

3.      It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking terms of or 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 terms or conditions.

Would that read better as above?

Coupon-mad said:

What you have for para 11 is better followed by:


12. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.  The particulars are embarrassing insofar as they fail to explain precisely what term(s) were breached and on which date(s).  In the context of a residential car park these 'PCNs' could relate to any number of alleged 'contravention codes' with each separate allegation requiring a response.  The Defendant is wholly disadvantaged if they are now forced to wait in limbo to learn of the precise allegations, dates and details until just two weeks before a hearing, when ambushed with this serial Claimant's generic template prolix Witness Statement.

13.  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”.

14.   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.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim with this many allegations requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

15. 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.'"  No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

16.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and 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) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is invited to strike this claim out.

Thanks guys, I'll make the changes 

CluelessDefendant

I just spoke to our housing association and my housing officer will contact me in a day, but they said they might not be able to help and to contact Citizen's advice? If they can't get these tickets cancelled then who can? 

Coupon-mad

Just forget the CAB, which is sadly useless on parking cases.

The HA are liable for the actions of their agents and they know that (they hope you don't know).

CluelessDefendant

Coupon-mad said:

Just forget the CAB, which is sadly useless on parking cases.

The HA are liable for the actions of their agents and they know that (they hope you don't know).

I'm just afraid that they'll call me up tomorrow and tell me they can't help while giving the PPC the go ahead to chase the charges then I'll be in a right pickle. Thing is all of our neighbours have been complaining about the PPC to the HA because of their dirty scheming tactics but nothing has been done yet...

Coupon-mad

They probably will.  But you are robustly defending the claim so you are not in a pickle.  Residents who fail to reply to claims will be (they'll get CCJs).  But that isn't you.

Which is your nearest county court? Some might well strike out this claim due to the lack of particularised allegations.