Fined for parking in my allocated residential parking space.

TitaniumManta

Le_Kirk said:

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.

When I asked the property manager after receiving the fine, this was her exact response:
"I was just informed by the management company that you need to have a parking permit displayed on your windscreen, even though you park in the bay that is allocated to the flat. They said they always send the information to new tenants but somehow there is a little of trust in this from my end."

Nothing in my tenancy documentation mentions a parking permit, and I only recived the parking bay number in a later email.

Another question, do I also need to send my defence to Gladstones? Or will the Court system do that as part of the process?
Thanks for your help so far.

KeithP

TitaniumManta said:

Le_Kirk said:

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.

Another question, do I also need to send my defence to Gladstones? Or will the Court system do that as part of the process?

The court system does that as part of the process.

TitaniumManta

Le_Kirk said:

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.

When I spoke to the property manager after receiving the fine, this was her exact words:
"I was just informed by the management company that you need to have a parking permit displayed on your windscreen, even though you park in the bay that is allocated to the flat. They said they always send the information to new tenants but somehow there is a little of trust in this from my end."

As I said nothing in my tenancy documentation mentions a permit required for parking, and the I only received the parking bay number in a later email.

Another question, do I also need to send my defence to Glastones? Or will the Court do that as part of the process?
Thanks for your help so far. Will post my up dated defence below.

TitaniumManta

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 the terms of a lease, to “XXX” at that location. 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 the landlord.

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 that no such ballot was ever carried out.

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 rental property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that rental 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. Also the defendant objects to Gladstones attempt at adding interest at 10.25% which is extortionate

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.

B789

TitaniumManta said:

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ”XXX”. The Defendant has, since 10th July 2021, held the terms of a lease, to “XXX” at that location. Both the managing agents and their agent are strangers to your the lease (not signatories) and have no right to amend or alter your property rental agreement with the landlord.

If you're going to copy and paste, make sure you proofread to prevent the type of error highlighted above^^^^

Le_Kirk

TitaniumManta said:

Le_Kirk said:

TitaniumManta said:

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"? 

When I asked the property manager after receiving the fine, this was her exact response:
"I was just informed by the management company that you need to have a parking permit displayed on your windscreen, even though you park in the bay that is allocated to the flat. They said they always send the information to new tenants but somehow there is a little of trust in this from my end."

My point was, did the Management Company use that poor grammar?

1505grandad

"3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ”XXX”. The Defendant has, since 10th July 2021, held the terms of a lease, to “XXX” at that location."

I am confused as to what document is actually held as previous posts stated:-

" Nowhere in my tenancy agreement did it mention that I required a permit to park....."

"As I said nothing in my tenancy documentation mentions a permit required for parking......"

TitaniumManta

Hi everyone, just a quick update. So I submitted my defence on 11/04/23, and as I hadn't recieved any response from Gladstones for 2 months I thought that might be the end of it and they had declined to continue. But today I recieved a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, with the N180 Questionnaire. I had thought they had missed the deadline for responding, as I think it was 28 days from the Acknowlegement of Service correct?

I just checked my account on the MCOL site and it says "Case Stay Lifted on 07/06/2023". How were Gladstones allowed to put the case on hold for two months?

pinkelephant12

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question.  I'm sure someone else with far more knowledge than me will come along soon to help.

Just be aware that there are massive delays at the CCBC since the restructuring at the start of the year e.g. 43 working days to reply to correspondence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-civil-business-centres-performance-information

Coupon-mad

TitaniumManta said:

Hi everyone, just a quick update. So I submitted my defence on 11/04/23, and as I hadn't recieved any response from Gladstones for 2 months I thought that might be the end of it and they had declined to continue. But today I recieved a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, with the N180 Questionnaire. I had thought they had missed the deadline for responding, as I think it was 28 days from the Acknowlegement of Service correct?

I just checked my account on the MCOL site and it says "Case Stay Lifted on 07/06/2023". How were Gladstones allowed to put the case on hold for two months?

Perfectly normal and as expected.