Link Parking Claim

Coupon-mad

Feb 2024:

Hi all,

I have received a Claim form from Link parking for parking on the visitor spot on my development where I live and I have followed the template Defence to reply to the claim form. 

The reason why Link issued a ticket in the first place is that they have put a rule in place (on their sign) that there was a limit of 24 hours parking with no return within 48 hours on the visitor parking spot. There is however no way to account for these 24 hours parking at all, you don't register the parking session online or over the phone or app or anything at all. 

On the other hand, on my lease there is no such thing as "no return within 48 hours" but only a limit of parking for a consecutive period of 24 hours which did not happen. The car was on the bay for a few minutes on Day 1 then left and the following day it was parked for 20 minutes and then again left. Their parking officer took a picture of the car on Day 1 at like 11:15 am and then a second picture of the car on Day 2 at 13:20 to claim. Then Link claimed that I did not follow the parking rules there. On the only two pictures they are providing as evidence you can see that on each day the car is parked in a different way so that it has moved since the first picture was taken. So whilst using the Defence template I have also used my leasehold section which relates to the visitor parking spot and the terms of use. This lease was signed before we moved in and at the time the spot in question did not even exist as the site was still in construction so Links' signage was inexistent. 

The problem I am having at the moment is that Links have used a wrong address on the claim form, we live in a house in the development but they've added a flat number on the address. So basically something like instead of putting "10 Downing Street" they have put "Flat 10, 10 Downing Street". Although there are no flats at 10 Downing Street there are flats at number 11, so I know for a fact that some letters went to "flat 10, 11 Downing Street" on some occasions.

Link Parking did use my correct address and when replying to my subject access request it was confirmed that they hold only the correct address.

Somehow it is their solicitor BW Legal that somewhere in the process decided to change the address and add a flat number. I have requested that they correct this in my reply to the letter of Claim; in my reply that the address they were using the wrong address and what my correct address was but they totally ignored my letter, they did not reply to it nor did they amend my address in their system. I also informed the Court in my Defence.

Now they have just sent off their completed Directions Questionnaire still to my wrong address but it must mean that the Court have already sent that and I should have received my own copy which I didn't.

So I am assuming that there is an issue with the address used by the Court and that maybe they haven't amended the address in their system and that their letter got lost or went to the wrong place. I have emailed them and I am trying to contact them by phone but they are not picking up.

Savosmee said:

The Particulars of Claim are:

The claim is of £100.00 due from the Defendant for an unpaid parking charge following a contractual breach which occurred on XXX in the private car park/land at XXX by the driver of XXX registration mark XXX. The private land was lawfully occupied by the Claimant. The displayed terms and conditions offered the driver a contractual licence, which were accepted upon entry by the driver, and subsequently breached. Driver's Breach: Exceeded the maximum stay period despite demands, the parking charge remains unpaid. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in the Industry Code of Practice".

August 2024:

Savosmee said:

I've re-read their WS and Supplementary WS last night.

On the PCN issued, the NTK and in the PoC the breach is always mentioned as only "Exceeded Maximum Stay Period"
Then as I've mentioned the pictures they show of the car from the 2 different dates show the car is parked differently so was moved which I say in my WS and that the car therefore is not evidenced having exceeded the maximum stay period of 24 hours.

But in their WS and SWS they alternatively say that the car was parked for over 24 hours or that the car returned within the period of no return for 48 hours.

But would everyone agree that therefore their PoC and also their PCN should have add more to the breach and say "(OR) returned within the period of no return" instead of only mentioning "Exceeded the Maximum Stay Period". Or is it fair to think that returning within the period of no return could be comprise under the breach of "Exceeding the Maximum Stay Period".

Because if it's not then it of course further supports my claim that PoC were not detailed enough and I make reference to Chan judgement and attach it as per the template. But yesterday I realised by re-reading the PoFa Schedule that it would also make the original PCN and NTK invalid on this ground too.



UPDATE 2nd Sept 2024

Savosmee said:

UPDATE: I've lost

I had the hearing today. It was horrible. I've lost on all counts.
The judge allocated 100 + 60 additional costs + BW legal costs 
I believe what I was ordered to pay is even higher than everything that was claimed by BW and the judge made a mistake on that as well

The judge was a few hours late. Then ask the usher for the file to read it before we came in (so maybe he didn't even read it before). then we came in and clearly he had already made up his mind although he said he didn't have the Claimnt's WS and evidence so I wonder how he did. Then the advocate sent that to him by email then.

He started off by looking me explaining that the party who lose and wants to appeal would have to prove that he was wrong in law.

He then basically stated out the Claimant's points instead of the claimants doing so and then asked me what was my defence.

I then stated my points one by one:
first of the WS of the claimant being from a representative, not the claimant >judge said it's common practice and okay
about the supplementary WS served one month later > he said it was admissible as " I had received it"
about the PoC issue lacking details I mentioned Chan and the CPR number and then went on on several issues like the address being the postcode of another street behind our house which they don't manage, or the PoC not mentioning the no return rule etc > he dismissed everything one by one saying that they have identified the place although the address was not fully correct. and for the no return rule he didn't agree
about my address he said I received the claim form eventually so all good
on my lease he said the landowner and management company can make regulations and they don't need to apply for the lease to vary to do so, I insisted on that point, there was no way he didn't even look at the pages in my lease I was referring to he just said it was common practice and made perfect sense
on the fact that the vehicle moved he said that it returned within the no return period
on the fact that the first pic was in black and white and just one pic and from a distance you cannot see if someone is in the vehicle and my visitor told me they just stopped there, he said there is no evidence to the contrary (that the car was parked)
then all the points I've made in relation to poFA he dismissed one by one, about the period of parking he said that was not necessary for them to indicate, the issue with the address as before he said we could tell where it was, the circumstances of the breach same he said it was Clear enough, about certain elements missing on the pcn or ntk he said he was satisfied that everything was compliant
about the signage being everywhere just saying to display the permit but one sign he said the driver should read the sign even if it higher than all the other ones that say differently
about the small prints of £100 he said it was readable
about the additional costs not mentioned on the signage and the consumer rights act point I raised as well he said it was not contrary to the act to do so
about the legal costs I tried to mention the fact that they didn't engage in pre-action protocol by failing to reply to me and he dismissed that

it was such a horrible day and I tried my best to prepare and defend my points but nothing worked

How appalling. That sounds like a clueless Judge. I've just looked back at the first page of your thread and I'm amazed this was lost.

So amazed that I recommend you contact Contestor Legal to see if they can see grounds for appeal.  I think there are a few errors in this judgment but this is something you'd need a professional to handle for you, if you try. 

Savosmee said:

So I've heard back from Contestor Legal after I detailed to them my Defence and what happened at the hearing and they are ready to take on my case and think I have "a high prospect of succeeding" however we're looking at costs of over £1,000 (between court fees, transcript fees, their fees for preparing and their fees if I want them to attend and considering how traumatised I am by the hearing I had I don't think I can do it alone again) with always the risk of losing in the Court of Appeal and having to pay the other side's legal costs on top. 

As they are making a similar claim (I mentioned 2 months ago and linked the post at some point), but this time in relation to my own parking bay for not displaying a permit, I think maybe it is worth taking this risk and spending that money and using the Appeal judgment against their other claims. On the other hadn't if I don't and try to dispute their other claim at the same county court I may end up in front of the same Judge who would obviously rule in their favour once again.

What worries me is that this judge was saying as an introduction that he knew this kind of claims very very well and he's done 100s of judgment and he only needed to have a look at the PCN to tell whether things were compliant or not. At some point when he asked BW legal advocate her response to me saying that they could not claim the £60 additional costs and she was totally lost, he pointed her to a case at the Southampton court or something like that at the moment in respect to that, she had no idea what he was talking about. But if he had judged on 100s of similar cases, am I really likely to win or will I lose a few £1,000s this time?

Update May 2025

Just to update everyone.

I ended up appealing the judgment with the help of Contestor Legal and the Appeal took place recently and I actually won and the initial judgment was cancelled!

Thank you everyone for advising me to appeal as I was very unlikely to do so after the terrible time I had at the hearing back in then...

I'm thrilled!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

And a punch in the nose for BW Legal and that Judge.

Which court?

Have CL blogged about your case in their website yet? They love beating BW Legal.

Can you give us a summary of what points of error Jackson Yamba (or his colleague) argued?

Could you show us the written transcript from the first hearing that you paid for, and the appeal application ... and the final judgment too, if it was in writing from the senior judge and if Jackson doesn't mind releasing it to us (with your name redacted)?

Transcripts really help others and this is an appeal so it is PERSUASIVE! Like Jopson v HomeGuard was, and CEL v Chan.

Your case is up there too!  Please please share the transcript(s) and Approved Judgment. I'd especially like to read (please) the first hearing transcript where the judge went so badly wrong. But redact your data of course.

Which exact point(s) won it?

Which HHJ (circuit judge) heard it?

Did you get your costs?

What has happened to the other PCNs (other claim?) that you said was also following the first one?

  

Savosmee

Thank you @Coupon-mad because that was really your last comment that convinced me to appeal!

I will respond to everything in more details shortly but no I don't think it's on their blog yet.

The absence of "period of parking" on the NTD and/or NTK was the point which won it, not the lease.

I didn't get most of my costs though, only partly, not Contestor Legal's costs, so that was a bit disappointing but considering BW legal is suing on several other PCNs hopefully it was worth it.

I am still awaiting more info on the other PCNs at this stage.

Coupon-mad

I'd love to be able to use these transcripts to help others. When you can, please post them!

Wondering about you suing the landowner or managing agents for signing up with Link and ultimately causing the wasted costs. You could also seek compensation as a remedy for significant distress arising from constant, repeated harassment of multiple PCNs that required a barrister to see off, at cost to you.