Gladstones Claim Form

paynele47

Hi

I have just posted on another thread my girlfriends claim as it looks like Parking Control Management have got it in for me, as have issued me and my girlfriend a claim form on the same issue date.

They manage the land of a new block of flats and there are some shops there are too, including the Co-Op. I parked outside the Co-Op and they have clocked me via a remote control camera.

I rent a flat and 2 permits and a fob. My permit is always displayed in front screen.

There are signs saying no parking. This is my claim. 

Please see claim form with issue date of 12/10/23, I done the AOS on 16/10/23.

Le_Kirk

paynele47 said:

I have just posted on another thread my girlfriends claim as it looks like Parking Control Management have got it out for me, as have issued me and my girlfriend a claim form on the same issue date.

I would suggest they "have it in for you" rather than "out for you"!  However, who is named as defendant on the N1 form, you or girlfriend, for it is they who will have to complete the AoS and compile the defence (although of course, you can help).  Check the Template defence thread and particularly paragraph 3 of that defence, where you find pointers to a defence to use against sparse particulars including CEL v Chan.

Fruitcake

Your claim number is clearly showing. You should get that imaged removed or redacted.

What happened when you complained tot he landowner and your MP? That is always Plan A. 

What does your lease/AST say about parking, permits, PPCs, PCNs, paying PCNs, and court? What it doesn't say is equally important. If you have a right to park then residents' VRMs should be on an exempt whitelist.

Coupon-mad

Use the Template Defence including CEL v Chan as seen in that sticky thread.   Very easy to defend these.  Also read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html?m=1

Obviously we have defence words on the forum already written about that case too.

KeithP

Please ignore this post. It is based on wrong information.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 16th October, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

paynele47

A claim was issued against you on 12/10/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/10/2023 at 09:16:20

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/10/2023 at 01:07:46

What is my deadline to file a defence?

UncleThomasCobley

paynele47 said:

A claim was issued against you on 12/10/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/10/2023 at 09:16:20

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/10/2023 at 01:07:46

What is my deadline to file a defence?

4pm, Tuesday 14th of November.

KeithP

paynele47 said:

A claim was issued against you on 12/10/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/10/2023 at 09:16:20

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 23/10/2023 at 01:07:46

What is my deadline to file a defence?

Ah... new and different information.

You told us, and I based my earlier reply on...

paynele47 said:

Please see claim form with issue date of 12/10/23, I done the AOS on 16/10/23.

You are now giving us different information and that of course means the answer will be different.

Please disregard my earlier post and instead read this...

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 23rd October, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

paynele47

Coupon-mad said:

Use the Template Defence including CEL v Chan as seen in that sticky thread.   Very easy to defend these.  Also read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html?m=1

Obviously we have defence words on the forum already written about that case too.

Just thinking of what defence to use. As its not in my car park residential bays, but on the estate of flats that PCM manage outside the shop Co-Op, will I have to rely on inadequate signage?

Help appreciated.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

No you use the Template Defence.

paynele47

So have adapted the first paragraphs as follows until 

"The claimant will concede that no financial loss......"

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

Parking Control Management UK Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ”Langley Square”. The Defendant has held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. 292 at that location since 30/10/2020. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

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 same.

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 a 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.

8.2. 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 to park/rights 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.

9. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and