BW Legal Claim Form Via County Court Business Centre please help?

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

Your exhibits need re-ordering after exhibit 4 because they should flow with sequential numbering, in the same order that you mention them in the WS.

I would get rid of the a b c and the paragraph under it (about Jopson) as it makes little sense and nor is the word 'lessee' ordinarily applicable to a tenant who rents (and isn't a leaseholder).  

Instead, search the forum again and copy some relevant wording about Jopson that LOADS of people have included in defences and WS for years.

Finally, have you got their WS yet?  How long (exactly) is your car shown parked for and us it in a shared bay or one allocated to you?

Okay reordering it.

getting the wording.

My car just sits there, There is not a specific allocation either as far as I remember. 

Manjaik

@Coupon-mad


you mean

Jopson v Homeguard is against this claim

 

4.    The notices and signs the Claimant have erected in the parking area make no reference to any rights which the occupiers of the premises may have had by virtue of their leases

 

5.    The Defendant maintains, as shown in Exhibit TA, there is no mention to requiring a permit to park or having to adhere to any third party parking regulations

 

6.    Jopson v Homeguard (See Exhibit JvH) reinforces the primacy of contract of a Tenancy Agreement or Lease in the case of residential parking

This would sound more relevant ?!

Manjaik

quite stressing considering 8 days until my WS needs to arrive.

I have got their WS they advise they have agreement with housing management company to manage car park, however they are not my landlord, my landlord is whom I have AST.
Also they "laugh" at the defence etc.

Coupon-mad

Let them laugh.

I searched and found this which goes into better detail about your position.  Numbering might be wrong for you but that's easy edited:


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. I deny being in breach of any parking conditions, which cannot override my tenancy agreement which permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land and includes no relevant obligation nor a fee or cost for vehicular use of the site.  There was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement with the flat leaseholder, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.  The Claimant - a third party to the site who have no standing and appear not to have even looked at the residents' leases prior to putting their sparse signs up - targets residents (not trespass) and attempts to run a business that relies on unfairly charging residents for parking rights already offered by the landlord and accepted/concluded by the signing of the tenancy agreement. 

7. The operator’s signs cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, nor

(ii) retrospectively and unilaterally restrict existing grants and easements where provided for within the landlord's lease. Despite purporting to act for managing agents (notably not the landowner) the Claimant has not provided a copy of the Head Lease and a tenant like me has no access to it, but modern leases include implied or express rights that cannot be overridden or interfered with, by a third party.

8.  I rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) - a persuasive residential parking case, exhibit xx5 - and on the binding authority of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, where right to park was in the nature of an easement and it was held that the principle of derogation from grant applied to all forms of grants. The resident established her right to damages and the interference with the exercise of her right to park was 'substantial'.

9. Accordingly, in my case, there was no agreement between me (or any driver of the vehicle) and the Claimant. There was no obligation in my tenancy to display a permit.

In the alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms, and no 'legitimate interest'

10.  The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. Conversely, the parking signage in my case was inadequate and there was no reason to think I was unauthorised nor at risk of a charge.

11.  Further, the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage and has no overriding legitimate interest in penalising and charging residents.  The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

Manjaik

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/uyf9d96uju5z267aunjie/WS-BW.docx?rlkey=99tr4diq0ggd3b10ru94bh9hi&dl=0

Manjaik

@Coupon-mad

okay editing again  

Coupon-mad

I just looked back at your OP which tells us:

"After some forward and backwards of emails, that I have not received my parking permit."

That's important as is the fact you were already living there (with parking rights) before this unsolicited regime was foisted upon you all.  You need to add all this information.  If they delayed the new permits then they caused the problem and cannot reasonably 'fine' residents who are awaiting a permit due to the company's own slowness.

Mikeh2001

 Also it stills looks like the first part of the document has different justification setting, so it looks odd.  If you are using windows press Ctrl+a to select all and apply the same settings to the whole document! 

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

I just looked back at your OP which tells us:

"After some forward and backwards of emails, that I have not received my parking permit."

That's important as is the fact you were already living there (with parking rights) before this unsolicited regime was foisted upon you all.  You need to add all this information.  If they delayed the new permits then they caused the problem and cannot reasonably 'fine' residents who are awaiting a permit due to the company's own slowness.

Will do!

do I need to exhibit the K Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd as well then ?! 

Manjaik

Mikeh2001 said:

 Also it stills looks like the first part of the document has different justification setting, so it looks odd.  If you are using windows press Ctrl+a to select all and apply the same settings to the whole document! 

Ok will do.