County Court Claim MET Parking/QDR Solicitors

damncold

Hi all,

I have received a claim form from MET Parking which has been filed by QDR Solicitors. I sent MET Parking a SAR request and sent an email to QDR Solicitors notifying them of this. MET Parking have since emailed back saying "In order for us to respond to your request please provide both the vehicle registration and the parking charge number and we will be able to submit a response to your request". Are they able to request this? Part of the reason for the SAR is I want them to tell me about any tickets they have for that vehicle registration? I have done the AOS online and have since been reading the forums and researching any cases similar to mine. I have used the template very kindly provided on here and have added my own points from my research which are below:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver.

3. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to a 'Parking Charge' incurred on DATE. The Particulars refer to the material location as LOCATION. The Defendant has, since DATE, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. X at that location. 

4. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, the lessee has easement rights and privileges granted to the Tenant, which include Right of Way.

“The full and free liberty for the Tenant at all times by day or by night and for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Flat but not further or otherwise to go pass and repass on foot over the pathways and other areas providing access to the Flat from the adopted highway whether with or without vehicles laden or unladen over along and across the roads and forecourts leading to the Building from the adopted highway in common with the Lessor and all others authorised by them to use the same and in common with all others having a like right”

5. On the date of the alleged incident the Defendant was accessing the flat and unloading their vehicle as is their right under the terms of the lease.

6. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease right of way 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 a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

7. Exercising the right of way by vehicle laden or unladen as per the lease to load or unload is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by leaseholders, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

(i) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles…for the purposes of obtaining access to the building…known as the auction mart.''

(ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

(iii) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.

(iv) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

8. 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 same.

9. 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.

10. 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 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.

11. 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.

12. Management and maintenance of the site at LOCATION, including the common parts and the forecourt, has been devolved to RIGHT TO MANAGE COMPANY since DATE. The Claimant does not have authorisation to operate at LOCATION from the Right To Manage company, RIGHT TO MANAGE COMPANY. The signs on the site have been installed without permission and are there illegally.

Any tips/advise would be greatly appreciated, many thanks.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

damncold

Hi,

The issue date was 16/05/2023 and the AOS was filed on the 22/05/2023.

KeithP

damncold said:

The issue date was 16/05/2023 and the AOS was filed on the 22/05/2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's less than a 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'.

B789

Your Defence is more like a Witness Statement. You only need to provide the legal "hooks" that you will later hang your WS on.

If your lease does not mention anything about permits or gives you full rights to park then you will also need to include a reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 35(a) or (b).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/37

Le_Kirk

damncold said:

I have received a claim form from MET Parking which has been filed by QDR Solicitors. I sent MET Parking a SAR request and sent an email to QDR Solicitors notifying them of this. MET Parking have since emailed back saying "In order for us to respond to your request please provide both the vehicle registration and the parking charge number and we will be able to submit a response to your request". Are they able to request this? Part of the reason for the SAR is I want them to tell me about any tickets they have for that vehicle registration?

How are they going to respond if they do not have the VRM?  Did you send a copy of your V5C when you submitted the SAR?  Is the address on the V5C the same as that on the PCN?  If, you having supplied the VRM and proven you are the data subject, they continues to put obstacles in your way, then a complaint to ICO is in order.

Coupon-mad

But the SAR is not the priority of course.

damncold

KeithP said:

damncold said:

The issue date was 16/05/2023 and the AOS was filed on the 22/05/2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's less than a 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'.

Thanks for that!

damncold

B789 said:

Your Defence is more like a Witness Statement. You only need to provide the legal "hooks" that you will later hang your WS on.

If your lease does not mention anything about permits or gives you full rights to park then you will also need to include a reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 35(a) or (b).

Think I understand what you mean. That's a good way of explaining it. Should I remove this part "5. On the date of the alleged incident the Defendant was accessing the flat and unloading their vehicle as is their right under the terms of the lease." I don't need to explain that at this point and should save it for the Witness Statement?

My lease doesn't mention anything about permits or parking. It does mention right of way with or without vehicles laden or unladen. The link you sent is to section 37 and I have seen this mentioned before. Which section is it that I need to mention though as you said Section 35(a) or (b)?

damncold

Le_Kirk said:

damncold said:

I have received a claim form from MET Parking which has been filed by QDR Solicitors. I sent MET Parking a SAR request and sent an email to QDR Solicitors notifying them of this. MET Parking have since emailed back saying "In order for us to respond to your request please provide both the vehicle registration and the parking charge number and we will be able to submit a response to your request". Are they able to request this? Part of the reason for the SAR is I want them to tell me about any tickets they have for that vehicle registration?

How are they going to respond if they do not have the VRM?  Did you send a copy of your V5C when you submitted the SAR?  Is the address on the V5C the same as that on the PCN?  If, you having supplied the VRM and proven you are the data subject, they continues to put obstacles in your way, then a complaint to ICO is in order.

I have done a SAR before with just my name being enough. I have now sent them my VRN and will do like you say and report if they keep putting up obstacles, thanks.

Coupon-mad

damncold said:

B789 said:

Your Defence is more like a Witness Statement. You only need to provide the legal "hooks" that you will later hang your WS on.

If your lease does not mention anything about permits or gives you full rights to park then you will also need to include a reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 35(a) or (b).

Think I understand what you mean. That's a good way of explaining it. Should I remove this part "5. On the date of the alleged incident the Defendant was accessing the flat and unloading their vehicle as is their right under the terms of the lease." I don't need to explain that at this point and should save it...

No definitely include that vital fact and quote Jopson v Homeguard like everyone else does in an unloading defence.

Easy to find and copy from. Do a forum search and change results to NEWEST.