Fined for parking in my allocated residential parking space.

TitaniumManta

Hi everyone,
Firstly thank you all for such a wealth of information, its been invaluable in helping so far. So the details of my parking fine are as follows:

In July 2021 I moved to an apartment block with an allocated parking space in an underground parking complex. Nowhere in my tenancy agreement did it mention that I required a permit to park there, and the only information I was given regarding the parking was the parking space number. I was also given a remote key fob which opens the gate and allows access to the underground parking. A few weeks after moving in, I found a parking fine stuck to my windscreen, with the usual nonsense of pay £100 (or if its within 14 days its 'reduced' to £60). I contacted the building management company to complain that how as a resident who was parking in my allocated parking space how I was being fined, and they replied that I should of had a parking permit displayed in my windscreen and that they always send this information to new tenants. Needless to say I never recieved this information, and even now there are multiple vehicles parked in the parking complex without permits in their windscreens (which I have taken photos of as evidence).

I didn't pay the intial fine, and now have recieved a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre, with an Issue Date of 10/03/23. After having reading through the large amount of information on the forum I used the MCOL website to submit my AoS on the 22/03/23. I have spent the last couple of days writing my defence which I believe is ready to send off as I've only got a couple of days left before the deadline. But before I do, was hoping an expert on here could cast an eye over it to make sure I'm not missing anything. Will post it below.

Thanks for your help

TitaniumManta

Claim No.: XXX

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXX                    

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 29/07/21. 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 ”XXX”. The Defendant has, since 10th July 2021, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to “XXX” at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The outside car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents only. 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, no reference is made about parking motor vehicles. Nor was there any mention of parking permits in any subsequent emails regarding further information on the property. The only information provided in relation to parking at the property is the parking space reference number, AC7, which the vehicle in question was parked in at all times.

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 the same. Additionally there are multiple vehicles parked within the residents only underground parking area that do not have a parking permit displayed.

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 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. In this case the Claimant continues to cause 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 additional sums 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. 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 £281.62, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

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

KeithP

TitaniumManta said:

I now have recieved a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre, with an Issue Date of 10/03/23. After having reading through the large amount of information on the forum I used the MCOL website to submit my AoS on the 22/03/23. I have spent the last couple of days writing my defence which I believe is ready to send off as I've only got a couple of days left before the deadline.

Hello and welcome.

You have perhaps a little longer than you think.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th April 2023 to file your Defence.

That's a whole week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

You appear not to have used the Template Defence offered in the thread of that name.

Also, your Statement of Truth is several years out of date. An up to date version can be found in the template Defence thread and also in the second post of the NEWBIES thread that I have given a link to.

Fruitcake

Your statement of truth is out of date.

Please confirm that you intend to include all the other template defence points, and renumber them following form your draft defence above?

I would suggest the following changes to your draft.

"3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ”XXX”. The Defendant has, since 10th July 2021, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to “XXX” at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate."

Either delete the highlighted sentence above completely, or state that both the managing agents and their agent are strangers to your lease (not signatories) and have no right to amend or alter your property rental agreement with *landowner/landholder*.

"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."

Delete the highlighted sentence above and state instead that no such ballot was ever carried out, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Otherwise I think your defence looks good.

Plan A is still a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so. Contact other residents and get them involved with a fightback. There is no reason why your property should be infested by an unregulated private parking company that is preying on genuine residents.
You may want to set up a Facebook fightback group or similar to get the PPC thrown off the site.

Coupon-mad

I don't think a tenant holds 'legal title'.

Have Gladstones tried to add interest at 10.25%?

How much is added on the right for legal fees?

TitaniumManta

Thanks guys,
I've amended points 3 and 7 according to Fruitcake's advice.
Do I need to admit that I was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle in question?

I was wondering if I needed to include the rest of the defence template so thanks for clearing that up. I've renumbered accordingly and made sure the statement of truth at the end now reads:
"I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth."
I trust this is the new one now?

TitaniumManta

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think a tenant holds 'legal title'.

Have Gladstones tried to add interest at 10.25%?

How much is added on the right for legal fees?

Yep, 10.25% interest continuing at £0.05 per day. Court fee of £35 and Legal representive's cost of £50.

Coupon-mad

OK so add in an objection to the extortionate 10.25% interest (search the forum...I wrote wording for this just days ago on another Gs thread).  And you do not have title in the land so you need to change that wording 
.

Le_Kirk

TitaniumManta said:

In July 2021 I moved to an apartment block with an allocated parking space in an underground parking complex. Nowhere in my tenancy agreement did it mention that I required a permit to park there, and the only information I was given regarding the parking was the parking space number. I was also given a remote key fob which opens the gate and allows access to the underground parking. A few weeks after moving in, I found a parking fine stuck to my windscreen, with the usual nonsense of pay £100 (or if its within 14 days its 'reduced' to £60). I contacted the building management company to complain that how as a resident who was parking in my allocated parking space how I was being fined, and they replied that I should of had a parking permit displayed in my windscreen and that they always send this information to new.........

Did they really say "should of"? You should tell the management company that as you have a fob you are de facto authorised to park there, unlike unregulated PPCs and, as have not given permission for them to trespass in or near your space, you expect the management company to prevent access by them.

When you find the correct template defence as pointed out by @KeithP just show us your paragraphs 2 & 3 and any you add for critique butofcorse you send it all to CCBC.

TitaniumManta

Coupon-mad said:

OK so add in an objection to the extortionate 10.25% interest (search the forum...I wrote wording for this just days ago on another Gs thread).  And you do not have title in the land so you need to change that wording 
.

Okay, so I've added an objection to the ridiculous 10.25% interest and taken out the references to land, changing it to rental property or landlord where required.

Coupon-mad

OK but drop the words 'legal title'