DCB Legal Court Date March Resident

Umkomaas

Castle said:

According to Companies House, "Corner Property Management", doesn't exist.

I think it's 'CoMer' not 'Corner'. 

https://thecomergroup.com/developments/tower-point/

Coupon-mad

I thought the same, but it's 'Comer':

https://www.homeviews.com/development/tower-point-en2-2

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07194403

We need to see the verbatim defence you put in, please.  The sign is clearer than most and is worded to create a contract to pay £100. 

Colonizemars

Bad writing 

their actually called Comer property management 

Castle

Colonizemars said:

Bad writing 

their actually called Comer property management 

They are not the Landowner.

Colonizemars

Castle said:

Colonizemars said:

Bad writing 

their actually called Comer property management 

They are not the Landowner.

Okay am I able to bring this up at the hearing 

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

I thought the same, but it's 'Comer':

https://www.homeviews.com/development/tower-point-en2-2

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07194403

We need to see the verbatim defence you put in, please.  The sign is clearer than most and is worded to create a contract to pay £100. 

Omg 😩

and the defence isn’t great. Got help from someone on Facebook didn’t have a clue what I was doing this was before I sadly found this forum. Will insert defence below 

Colonizemars

1. It is disputed that the Defendant ('D') is indebted to the Claimant ('C') for a Private Parking Charge(s) ('PPC') issued to vehicle xxxx at Tower Point, Enfield, EN2 6AZ. C is required to provide a copy of the Alleged Contract, upon which they rely, and prove that the driver of the vehicle was given proper consideration and intended to create legal relations. D avers that any terms that C relies on are unfair and hidden terms under English contract law:

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

2. It is disputed that the PPC details are 18/06/2021, 23/06/2021, 02/07/2021, 08/07/2021, 21/07/2021, 03/08/2021, 19/08/2021,01/09/2021, 27/09/2021,24/11/2021, 05/01/2022, 13/01/2022, 19/01/2022, 03/02/2022, 07/02/2022, 09/02/2022, 14/02/2022, 18/02/2022, 21/02/2022. 

D avers that the DVLA complied with a request for the Registered Keeper details of the Vehicle in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, as reported by The Guardian on June 25, 2022 (http://theguardian.com/.../parking-fines-dvla-law-drivers...). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has determined that the DVLA "was not using the correct lawful basis to disclose vehicle keeper information." D contends that the unlawful method of obtaining the Registered Keeper details renders C's claim - fruit of a poisonous tree ('arborem fructus venenosa'), as established in the case of R v Sang [1980] AC 402.

3. It is disputed that the PPC(s) were issued on private land owned or managed by C. It is disputed that the vehicle was parked in breach of Terms and Conditions (the 'Alleged Contract') thus incurring a PPC(s).

C failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to C's contractual authority to operate there as required by the C's Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question'

D denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. C was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. C was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the PPC. D refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by C could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

4. It is disputed that the Driver agreed to pay within 28 but did not. It is disputed that either the Driver or D entered into any contract with C and agreed to any such term which D avers is a Hidden and Unfair term.

5. It is disputed that D is liable as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. C is required to specify if they are pursuing D as the Registered Keeper or Driver of the vehicle on the date in question or relying on the provisions of POFA to bring an action against D as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

C has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that D was the driver. D avers that C is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA C must demonstrate that:

⦁ (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

⦁ (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that C has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6. It is disputed that despite requests, the PPC(s) are outstanding. It is denied that any outstanding liability exists. C is required to provide a copy of all statements, demands, invoices, default notice and termination notice they claim to have sent in relation to the Alleged PPC. D avers that C is attempting betterment by bringing a claim for losses they have not suffered.

7. It is disputed that the Alleged Contract entitles C to damages. It is denied that C has suffered any damages due to the actions of D; and;

(i) It is disputed that C is entitled to claim £3230 being the total of PPC(s) and alleged damages;

(ii) It is disputed that C is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.54 until judgment or sooner payment. D relies on the ruling in Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2007] UKHL 34, the House of Lords held that damages for breach of contract should be assessed on the basis of the actual loss suffered by the claimant, subject to the principles of causation and mitigation. The court noted that damages were not intended to be a punishment or a windfall, but rather a compensation for loss. D avers that C has suffered no loss due to any actions by D and is not entitled to claim the sum claimed or interest on that sum.

(iii) the amount claimed of £3947.84

is disputed both whole and in part;

(iv) costs are disputed and the court is respectfully invited to award costs against C.

8. D avers that C's particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and (c). In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

⦁ a. any list of documents that C intends to rely;

⦁ b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;

⦁ c. if C intends to rely on computer generated ANPR evidence;

⦁ d. the date of any default notice in relation to any Alleged Contract; or;

⦁ e. whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

D avers C suffers no loss due to any action of D and invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Colonizemars

My tenancy agreement says I have the right to park and doesn’t say I need to display a permit 

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

My tenancy agreement says I have the right to park and doesn’t say I need to display a permit 

That's what the defence should have included!

Quite a good defence - apart from the above omission - and the fact the UTCCRs hadn't been law for nearly a decade. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced it with better protections.

The point about your tenancy agreement is your main point, but:

- Is it your allocated bay or first-come-first-served residents' parking?

- secure site with gate & key fob, or open?

- what does your AST say about parking?

- were all the PCNs for not displaying a permit or were some for parking on private roadways, etc?

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

Colonizemars said:

My tenancy agreement says I have the right to park and doesn’t say I need to display a permit 

That's what the defence should have included!

Quite a good defence - apart from the above omission - and the fact the UTCCRs hadn't been law for nearly a decade. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced it with better protections.

The point about your tenancy agreement is your main point, but:

- Is it your allocated bay or first-come-first-served residents' parking?

- secure site with gate & key fob, or open?

- what does your AST say about parking?

- were all the PCNs for not displaying a permit or were some for parking on private roadways, etc?

I know gutted I hadn’t found this forum before filing that defence 🥲

- first come first served residents parking we was never allocated a bay 

- secure site with a gate and key fob

- AST says 

To use the car parking space(s) if one forms part of the Tenancy Agreement for the parking of a private vehicle(s) at the Property only.

Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Tenant is entitled to the use of the following parking on or about the Property: Underground secured car park with use of provided key fob for entry. Any bay permitted for use.

To park in the garage or driveway to the Property if applicable.

- all the PCNS were for not displaying a permit