N1SDT Claim - DCBL on behalf of OBServices parking

Coupon-mad

Use the above linked version Nykkuno because your case doesn't have compulsory Mediation unless you use the new one they are now going to send you.  Do not use that. You DON'T want useless Mediator bullying to settle.

Do not wait.  You are definitely the one they are sanctioning, so don't question it, just send the OLD May version in the link, to the CNBC and cc in the solicitors.

Nykkuno

Looks like things are progressing forward now, although I am still a bit peeved that I had no snail mail from MCOL regarding the DQ's or even the Sanctions Order.. This despite the postal address entered on MCOL being correct.

Claim Status

• A claim was issued against you on 17/04/2024
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/04/2024 at 13:37:22
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/04/2024 at 16:05:34
• Your defence was received on 24/04/2024
• DQ filed by claimant on 14/05/2024
• DQ sent to you on 14/05/2024
• General sanctions order was made on 19/06/2024
• You filed a DQ on 05/07/2024
• Your claim was transferred to BARNET on 05/07/2024

Next steps are the WS, which I have made a start on, and will post here for review closer to the time they are required.

As this claim is just for a single ticket I am 99% sure that I will eventually see DCBL file for a discountenance  close to the court date.

Nykkuno

Just getting my WS sorted...

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/zcsbf0abrrm4rkjhgf6dd/ANR38GTzQ0ElUd4dzmNUUEI?rlkey=hi30o06btnglbqcubckszugkn&st=x52ny4iw&dl=0

I have gone with a rather simple set of defenses...

• I have a leasehold agreement that has primacy over the T&C's imposed by OPC
  
• The main sign at the entrance to the estate has no T&C's and is therefore unenforceable

Let me know if I need to add anything else, but these arguments seem pretty watertight (I hope).

The hearing is scheduled for 20th January 2025...  But the judge has mandated that "Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm on 15th November 2024".

The claimant has to pay the court the trial fee by 4:00pm on the 20th December 2024... So I should know by then if they are going to discontinue...

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

https://tinypic.host/image/OPC-Sign-(Map-Outline-Hidden).DRzbfB

Wow.  There are no t&cs so it would be impossible to be in breach.

Just reminding us about the state of the sign. Make sure your exhibit of this sign shows the 'time & date of photo' metadata because at POPLA stage, they misled the Assessor with clearer pics taken before the t&cs faded.

You should say that too (that they deliberately misled POPLA), as part of a course of conduct of wholly unreasonable behaviour by Observices.  This plus the fact they have ridden roughshod over your rights and should never have brought a claim, means you should get your full costs for attending the hearing (prove time of work and any printing costs and estimate twenty hours of your time at £19 per hour in handling this unsolicited attack on your rights).

I think you should cite your rights under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and use this Court of Appeal authority (the Supreme Court refused an application to appeal it):

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/the-supreme-court-has-effectively-confirmed-the-approach-of-the-court-of-appeal-in-applying-the-rule-in-newman-v-jones-and-on-how-to-interpret-lease-clauses/

DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

That case reaffirmed leaseholders' rights under section 62.

"The residents of Duchess of Bedford House are relieved and delighted at this decision. After having had their right to park restricted by parking tickets and even clamping for periods over the last 30 years, they can park in the road outside their flats with full confidence in their right to do so."

--------------------------------

In your draft WS headings you say you are attaching a TENANCY agreement but in your words you say you have 'legal title' under a lease.

You don't, if you are a tenant.

You do, if you are the leasehold owner.

But either way, you are likely to enjoy whatever rights are in the head lease (in your WS ask the Claimant to produce it; they must have discussed the residents' pre-existing rights with the MA before starting enforcement...surely?!) and even as a tenant, you can arguably rely on s62 if your private landlord could. Their rights are (expressly or impliedly) extended to you.

Nykkuno

Coupon-mad said:

Make sure your exhibit of this sign shows the 'time & date of photo' metadata because at POPLA stage, they misled the Assessor with clearer pics taken before the t&cs faded.

You should say that too (that they deliberately misled POPLA), as part of a course of conduct of wholly unreasonable behaviour by Observices.  This plus the fact they have ridden roughshod over your rights and should never have brought a claim, means you should get your full costs for attending the hearing (prove time of work and any printing costs and estimate twenty hours of your time at £19 per hour in handling this unsolicited attack on your rights).

I think you should cite your rights under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and use this Court of Appeal authority (the Supreme Court refused an application to appeal it):

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/the-supreme-court-has-effectively-confirmed-the-approach-of-the-court-of-appeal-in-applying-the-rule-in-newman-v-jones-and-on-how-to-interpret-lease-clauses/

DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

That case reaffirmed leaseholders' rights under section 62.

"The residents of Duchess of Bedford House are relieved and delighted at this decision. After having had their right to park restricted by parking tickets and even clamping for periods over the last 30 years, they can park in the road outside their flats with full confidence in their right to do so."

--------------------------------

In your draft WS headings you say you are attaching a TENANCY agreement but in your words you say you have 'legal title' under a lease.

You don't, if you are a tenant.

You do, if you are the leasehold owner.

But either way, you are likely to enjoy whatever rights are in the head lease (in your WS ask the Claimant to produce it; they must have discussed the residents' pre-existing rights with the MA before starting enforcement...surely?!) and even as a tenant, you can arguably rely on s62 if your private landlord could. Their rights are (expressly or impliedly) extended to you.

Thank you for the input.

I assume the reference to 20 hours @ £19 per hour and the full costs entitlement section goes in the para 29 costs section?  How likely is it that the judge would grant that?

And the "section 62" bit goes somewhere in the Facts and Sequence of events, or prior to it?

Regarding the photo, if there is any proof required on dates I can bring up google street view...  There would be no argument then that my photo is accurate. 

And yes, it is a leasehold agreement.. I copied a lot of this from an earlier WS posted on the forum and modified it (a lot).

Bazarius

Have you recieved OPC’s copy of the contract with the landholders? 

If you have - check the wording carefully because in a few contracts especially old ones - it isn’t under Observices Parking Consultancy Limited being the Supplier - thereby have no standing to issue parking charges and the right to sue for the same .

Nykkuno

I did not see how OPC had a hope of winning as I had independent third party verification via Google street view that my photo was accurate.....

And it seems that they shared my view!

I can join the DISCO thread. 

Thanks everyone for the advice and help... This forum is invaluable!

Coupon-mad

Yay! You won at last.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Calling @Umkomaas

Umkomaas

Nykkuno said:

I did not see how OPC had a hope of winning as I had independent third party verification via Google street view that my photo was accurate.....

And it seems that they shared my view!

I can join the DISCO thread. 

Thanks everyone for the advice and help... This forum is invaluable!

You sure can. Let's dance!