UKPC PCNs > DCBlegal + Debt recovery plus.

Xefton

Hello again.

It says in the template defence thread to post my start of defence on my thread. Will be copied in below.

A quick preface to the defence, my shorthold tenancy agreement does not explicitly give me the right to park in the car park, but I've received written word from the estate agent the apartment was listed inclusive of parking. And another document , a reservation form before moving in describing the residency as having parking included. Both I know are not contracts.

Therefore my understanding is that the car park is only governed my operator signage. So I don't believe I can add these following cases to my defence,

1. "In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

2. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park."

I am unsure as to whether I can use these case references in my defence because of the earlier mentioned lease clause.



Sorry for walls of text,

The defence I've compiled before adding the additional universal paragraphs,

3. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parked displaying a permit that is not valid for site' incurred on 19/07/23, 29/07/23 and 31/07/23. The claimants' own photos taken and attached to the Penalty Charge Notices (‘PCN’) show a permit clearly on display on top of the vehicle dashboard. 

4.  The Particulars refer to the material location as My location. The Defendant had, since 22/09/22, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location.

5. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents. 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.

6. The residence was listed and rented with parking included. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, the definition, at para, 1.7, the car park must be kept ‘in a good state of decorative repair and condition and at least up to the standard when the Tenant took possession.’, is the only reference to the condition of the car park or parking within the car park.

6.1 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.

7. 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 tenancy agreements, which this parking firm is not a party to. This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

7.1 Wall signage states “A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times”, without any description as to what a valid permit is. The Claimant and the Claimants Legal Representative have both failed to explain to the defendant exactly what made the defendants permit ‘invalid’.

7.2. An image of the parking permit provided to the defendant on lease start day with date stamp 22/09/22 is included in the ‘Inventory and Schedule of Condition’ document. Is the exact same parking permit displayed during each claim. The defendant had not received a new, updated or inferred ‘valid’ permit since. The permit held by the defendant throughout their whole tenancy had zero issues with a proposed contract breach in the 10 months of tenancy leading up to the first PCN.

I am especially unsure about Para 7. As I tried to reword the defence from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74708527#Comment_74708527, but my lease conditions are different to the one in the link.

Also, is there any significance to mentioning that UKPC had initially shared these PCNs between 2 debt collectors to harass/fearmonger me before compiling them all with DCB? To highlight the behaviour of UKPC.


This post ended up longer than intended again,
Apologies, and thanks again.

Umkomaas

The claimants' own photos taken and attached to the Penalty Charge Notices (‘PCN’) show a permit clearly on display on top of the vehicle dashboard. 

Parking Charge Notices.  You've mentioned 'penalties' a number of times. No PPC can issue 'penalties'. Refer to them as 'parking charges' (even though you are effectively being penalised!). 

Coupon-mad

Yes you can include those cases.  You do have a grant or easement to park there.

Xefton

Thank you both, will update now. Ready for emailing off.

Xefton

Signed dated and emailed off. Acknowledgement from CNBC received.

I read on another thread to email the claimant or their legal reps so they can't deny receiving it. Is that worth doing?

Now time to wait again.

Coupon-mad

Yes no reason why not, and you could attach the proof you have:

 "written word from the estate agent the apartment was listed inclusive of parking. And another document , a reservation form before moving in describing the residency as having parking included."

Xefton

Quick update.

DCB have the defence. DCB actually emailed me on 15/5/24 asking for the proof that that parking spot was mine. In that email, they said if I didn't send them proof, they may have to progress the case, which I found funny, as they've already started the court procedure.

DCB sent me their early N180 just this morning. So I'll just sit waiting to hear from the court before I do mine.

Hoping to complete a house move this week. Then get sending off address change notifications. 

Coupon-mad

Make sure you pay for mail redirection for a few months just in case.

Xefton

Received my N180, Worryingly, the CNBC has updated my address to the new one. But posted it with my old postcode within the address. I double checked my original address change email to the CNBC. And the address I gave was correct.

Also, the N180 does not give me the choice of whether I want to use the Small Claims Mediation Service or not. Of course I want to say "no". The N180 that DCB have filed did have the choice. They've put yes to mediation. The wording at the start of the N180 sounds like mediation appointments are mandatory first. My N180 is different to the DCB one, to the point where putting unavailable dates is now in 2 parts, 1 for mediation, and 1 for the hearing.

Or am I missing something. This is definitely the N180 form

Coupon-mad

Mediation is sadly now mandatory but whilst you must attend the call (danger of adverse costs if you don't) you do not have to make an offer.

Just tell the Mediator to feed back that this new step of compulsory Mediation is tone deaf to the rogue parking industry's systemic abuse of the court system, and wholly inappropriate for parking cases.  Ludicrous to impose this on victims - pressuring consumers to be expected to "make an offer to a scammer" - just before statutory regulation of the known rogue industry begins in 2025.

Say you will accept the Claimant discontinuing the meritless claim and paying you an hour's loss of leave for causing this waste of time call. They have't even supplied any evidence, so why on earth Defendants are meant to offer money to ex-clampers for boilerplate claims is an insult to the intelligence of right-thinking people and perpetuates the modus operandi of roboclaim solicitors, who should be banned by the courts, not enabled.