NPC issued PCNs for parking in my own parking space

Coupon-mad

Ignore the one that's not yet got a claim (until a claim arrives of course, no ignoring that!).

Concentrate on this first claim.  

Northampton is an admin centre gateway. It's not the court.  You choose the Court later.

As well as answering KeithP's question, please show us the bottom half of this claim form with your VRM and the MCOL password covered.

WASD42

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?
Later in the process you get to choose where any hearing takes place.

Thanks! The issue date is November 23rd.

KeithP

WASD42 said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?
Later in the process you get to choose where any hearing takes place.

Thanks! The issue date is November 23rd.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd November, you have until Tuesday 12th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

WASD42

Got it, Keith, thank you.

Coupon-mad said:

Ignore the one that's not yet got a claim (until a claim arrives of course, no ignoring that!).

Concentrate on this first claim.  

Northampton is an admin centre gateway. It's not the court.  You choose the Court later.

As well as answering KeithP's question, please show us the bottom half of this claim form with your VRM and the MCOL password covered.

Thanks, below is the bottom half of the claim (I've covered the legal representative's name as well just for the GDPR reasons; not sure if relevant).

Coupon-mad

The POC do state the breach, so just use the Template Defence with your facts added to paragraph 3 and show us ONLY the bit you add (we don't want to see the Template Defence itself).

WASD42

So, this is what I came up with, combining the Template, few paragraphs from this post and this website.

I've slightly changed para. 2:

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The Particulars state 'The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle <…> In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper'. In addition, the location of the said “breach of contract” is unknown to the Defendant and is not the one showed on the photo “evidence”.
The POC 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".
However, the vehicle is recognized and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and, perhaps, the driver.

And here is my para. 3:

3. In consideration of the fact that the Defendant's arguments are predicated upon the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and the photographic evidence therein, rather than the erroneously specified address in the Particulars of Claim:
    a. The Defendant has, since [DATE], held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. [XX] and the exclusive right to park in a bay [XX] at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions.
    b. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. 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.
    c. Under the terms of the Defendant's Lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles:
        i. Under the 'Definitions' section, the term 'Initial Parking Space' is defined as the parking space delineated in blue on Plan 4, designated as space number [XX]

        ii. Within THE FIRST SCHEDULE, Rights Granted to the Tenant, para. 10 gives the Tenant an exclusive right to park in the Initial Parking Space subject to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the Landlord or the Management Company.

        iii. THE THIRD SCHEDULE, The Regulations includes several relevant clauses: para. 23 stipulates that the Tenant must avoid parking in a manner that causes obstruction; para. 24 prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, caravans, boats, and similar vehicles within specified areas; para. 25 instructs the Tenant against using visitor-designated parking spaces; para. 41 mandates that only vehicles compliant with current legislation governing public road use are permitted to park.

        iv.     The lease contains no clauses obligating the Tenant to pay charges or penalties to third parties, including the Claimant, for failure to display the parking permit or in any other circumstances.

    d. 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.
    e. 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.
    f. Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that the relevant Terms were clearly displayed on signage at the site of the alleged breach. This is particularly pertinent given that the location of the purported breach, as indicated in the PoC and PCN, does not correspond with the actual location of the Defendant's vehicle. Additionally:
        i. The photo "evidence" on the PCN merely demonstrates the absence of a physical permit on the vehicle's windscreen. However, the cited Terms permit the use of either a physical permit or an electronic permit (e-permit). The Defendant's vehicle has been registered with the Claimant's electronic permitting system since November 2022, following the Claimant's takeover from a previous Parking Management Company. This registration is corroborated by an email exchange with NPC’s Administration Assistant dated January 2023.

        ii. There was a known defect in the Claimant’s IT system, as confirmed by the same Administration Assistant in the aforementioned email correspondence. This defect impeded the Defendant's ability to register two vehicles. Despite repeated communications, the Claimant was initially slow to respond and only reluctantly provided an alternative solution after several weeks of inaction.

    g. 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.

Should I attach the Lease and the emails exchange log along with the Defence?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Should I attach the Lease and the emails exchange log along with the Defence?

No.

Evidence comes much later, with your WS.

This is a shame, your lease says parking is subject to displaying a permit?  I think I'd keep schtumm for now about this clause:

Within THE FIRST SCHEDULE, Rights Granted to the Tenant, para. 10 gives the Tenant an exclusive right to park in the Initial Parking Space subject to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the Landlord or the Management Company.

WASD42

Coupon-mad said:

This is a shame, your lease says parking is subject to displaying a permit?  I think I'd keep schtumm for now about this clause:

Within THE FIRST SCHEDULE, Rights Granted to the Tenant, para. 10 gives the Tenant an exclusive right to park in the Initial Parking Space subject to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the Landlord or the Management Company.

Noted, thanks, I'll just leave "para. 10 gives the Tenant an exclusive right to park in the Initial Parking Space".

Indeed it does, but with NPC it's either a physical permit or an e-permit. Also, the Lease stipulate that the permit should be issued by the Landlord or the Management Company, whereas in the reality NPC issues those printed permits; not sure if it's important.

Out of curiosity, why is this important if NPC refers to the T&Cs printed on the signage as "the contract"? In the ideal world, the case should be very straightforward: (1) there's no breach of contract as there was an e-permit; (2) even if the car would not have one, then the Lease gives the right to park, not the NPCs T&Cs. What am I missing?

WASD42

Hey all, it looks like CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk and ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk do not work anymore, as I had no response from either of these addresses -- tried sending on Monday and Tuesday, following all the guidance in the Template Defence post (email subject and body, attached PDF (618 Kb), etc).

Are there any other ways to submit the defense apart from MCOL which is advised to be read-only since the ack?

KeithP

WASD42 said:

Hey all, it looks like CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk and ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk do not work anymore, as I had no response from either of these addresses -- tried sending on Monday and Tuesday, following all the guidance in the Template Defence post (email subject and body, attached PDF (618 Kb), etc).

Are there any other ways to submit the defense apart from MCOL which is advised to be read-only since the ack?

Has anyone else reported this problem?

Perhaps you should try sending from a different email address.
We have in the past heard about problems with gmail.