PCN's on Partners Demised parking space.

Hendolad

KeithP said:

That last sentence is trying to transfer the burden of proof from the Claimant to the Defendant.
It is the Claimant's job to prove their case, not the Defendant's job to prove that the Claimant is lying mistaken.

Have you seen pictures that show the vehicle was parked in the demised bay?

Conversely, are there pictures showing the vehicle parked in the wrong place on all six occasions?

I saw the pictures originally back in 2022 but I am 99% sure they were for the demised bay. The only time I wouldn't park in our bay was when someone had parked in the demised bay  illegally. Am I right in requesting through the agent their photo evidence?

Coupon-mad

In the right?!!!

Yes.  Be more pushy.

You should be going ballistic & telling them that the burden of proof lies with Countrywide and you demand all photos taken immediately and for the managing agents to see them too, so they can see what's really going on.

Hendolad

Coupon-mad said:

In the right?!!!

Yes.  Be more pushy.

You should be going ballistic & telling them that the burden of proof lies with Countrywide and you demand all photos taken immediately and for the managing agents to see them too, so they can see what's really going on.

This was my reply. They've messed up realy as I've always communicated that the parking spot was our Demised spot, They have never said until today that it was another spot. And there are errors on their claim form i.e. date range which excludes two of the 4 PCN's.

Hendolad

After contacting Countrywide Parking for Evidence they sent me to their debt collectors, who then sent me to BW Legal who were very helpful tbh. I obtained the Photos and I was in fact parked in my partners Bay so forwarded the details back to the Management Company.by email - below.

Coupon-mad

Great work.  Don't let this go!

It is terrible that the managing agents were pretty curt (rude, I think) to you.  They should apologise profusely and sack Countrywide and NOT HAVE A PPC AT ALL.

I bet the same has happened to other residents.

Hendolad

If you can have a read and let me know what you think about my defence please?

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Hendolad said:

Thanks, So my line of defence should be that, a) the car was legally parked under the terms of the lease (Insured and Mot'd or roadworthy and permitted by the lessee), b)There is a Primacy of contract with the held lease, c) I do not have to disclose who the driver was under the POFA 2012 d) that the contract they claim to have with me is not binding as it does not meet consideration (the willing transfer of money for a service) nor an intention to create a legal relationship on the grounds that the Parking space is demised and the Lease held is solely for the benefit of the Lessee.

Yes, as your para 5 slotted into the defence linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence.

As above, you need to be using the hharry100 defence & just adding a paragraph 5, like I said.

Le_Kirk

held by his partner whom authorised

should be   

held by his partner whom who authorised

Coupon-mad

Hendolad said:

If you can have a read and let me know what you think about my defence please?

Is this the added paragraph 5?  You are using the harry100 defence linked where I said?

Hendolad

This is my draft defence, any notes would be gratefully accepted.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [Civil National Business Centre]

 

Claim No: [*****]

 

Between:

Countrywide Parking Management Limited

 

-and-

 

Mr 

 

DEFENCE STATEMENT

 

1.0 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct of the driver was in breach of any term or Licence that the Claimant claims to hold.

 

1.1 The Defendant admits that between 09/06/2022 and 21/06/2022, the Defendant’s vehicle registration no. ***was parked at *****

 

1.2 The Defendant denies the existence of any contract between himself and the Claimant and asserts that the parking was authorised under the terms of a primary contract, specifically "The Lease Agreement" held by ****

 

Primary Contract and Authorisation

 

2.1 The parking space and the parking of the car mentioned above conform with the terms of the primary contract "The Lease Agreement," held by ****, who authorised the parking in her demised space at the mentioned times.

 

2.2 The Defendant asserts an absolute entitlement to park derived from the lease terms, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms imposed by the Claimant. This position is supported by the principle established in Pace V Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0, where it was found that a parking company could not override a tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit, and by extension a visitor’s right to park. 

 

Lack of Contractual Agreement

 

3.1 The Claimant’s purported offer of a contract to the Defendant to grant access to ***** demised space, to which they have no easement, cannot constitute a valid offer. The Defendant has not accepted any such offer, and no contract has been formed. This principle is consistent with the ruling in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, where the court held that a contract is not formed without clear acceptance of an offer.

 

3.2 The Defendant has consistently declined any acceptance of a contract with the Claimant. Furthermore, the Defendant has been subjected to harassment by the Claimant and their agents, Trace Debt Recovery UK Ltd and BW Legal, to formalise a contract, which is in itself an unacceptable practice.

 3.3 The Claimant failed in their duty to issue a second parking permit on request from the tenant, ***, who requested by e-mail on 11th January 2022 to Permits@countrywideparking.co.uk. This behaviour is indicative of a Company that wishes to ignore their responsibilities so that it could lead to an increase in producing Penalty Charge Notices for their own benefit.

 

Confirmation from Management Agents

 

4.1 On 22nd May 2024, the Claimant confirmed through ***** management agents, **** Management Ltd, that **** “demised bay is not subject to parking enforcement.” This assertion negates any claim of breach by the Defendant.

 

Photographic and Keeper Evidence

 

5.1 Photographic evidence confirms that the vehicle was parked in **** demised parking space.

 

5.2 The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but not the only person legally entitled to drive it. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Defendant is not obliged to disclose the driver’s identity at the time of the alleged breach.

 

Rights and Easements

 

6.1 The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, as per the lease agreement. This principle is supported by the ruling in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, where the court upheld that parking easements cannot be retrospectively and unilaterally restricted.

 

Denial of Claimant’s Loss or Damage

 

7 Accordingly, it is denied that:

7.1 There was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.

7.2 The Claimant has suffered any loss or damage, or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.