Parking Control Management N1SDT

90Ninety

Primacy of Contract

The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park

I was thinking the basis of the defense would be based on the premise above 'Primacy of contract'  that the lease of the Apartment and its parking space supersedes any further party imposing charges or conditions . And thus the claimant cannot impose fines , when it is within rights of the lease agreement to be parked without further terms imposed 
 
 The landlord must own the parking space I assume , when we complained to the landlord about the ticket , she said we had legal right to park there and PCM are toothless.. There is now a paper permit , so this must be the case right? ... So  I asked to see the lease , and looked at the  paperwork, annoyingly there is no mention of the parking .   So with the above in mind , can I still make this the basis of the defense ?   It seems like the parking was agreed verbally without papers given to the leaser from the landlord 

I understand we should use the first three paragraphs of the template , then add more if relevant ? I have cobbled together some paragraphs here so far , this will update over time 
Defense Case for Parking .docx

Coupon-mad

You use the whole template and if the Claimants haven't said what the breach was you use the alternative one linked in the defence itself.

It is self explanatory, I think.

KeithP

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

It is alleged that the driver breached the terms on the signs (the contract).

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

90Ninety

Coupon-mad said:

You use the whole template and if the Claimants haven't said what the breach was you use the alternative one linked in the defence itself.

It is self explanatory, I think.

   . So in a nutshell we only write our own defense within paragraph 3 [Edit  paragraph 4] of the template (based of previous successful defenses found here)  then after paragraph 4 the rest is a copy and paste . 
On this understanding then , I have just written a paragraph stating why the POC are not sufficient , citing the 'Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) '

I have updated the defense document here

If anyone would kindly confirm if this suffices , I will print/ post it 

LDast

You need a sub heading after para #1: "Preliminary Matter. The Claim should be struck out".

After para #3, before the "facts" sub header you must include the embedded CEL v Chan transcript images.

Coupon-mad

90Ninety said:

Coupon-mad said:

You use the whole template and if the Claimants haven't said what the breach was you use the alternative one linked in the defence itself.

It is self explanatory, I think.

   . So in a nutshell we only write our own defense within paragraph 3 of the template 

If anyone would kindly confirm if this suffices , I will print/ post it 

No.

That's not the version I said to use.

And if you post it you'll get a CCJ.

90Ninety

LDast said:

You need a sub heading after para #1: "Preliminary Matter. The Claim should be struck out".

After para #3, before the "facts" sub header you must include the embedded CEL v Chan transcript images.

Done Thanks 

I am struggling to understand and a bit lost , understanding what other court defense examples to refer to  ..  Since the POC are very vague/murky   ...  The guidance states  not to mention anything that is not within the POC ..  



My initial use-cases were focused on Arguing that the unfettered parking permissions were  given to the resident and his/her visitors (the defendant)  by the land owner/ landlord and these permissions cannot be altered by any other party without prior consent.   Therefore any enforcement of contract cannot override the tenant's right for her/his visitors to part there 

However I understand it was a verbal agreement to have visitors park there between the tenant and landlord .. Should I be contacting the landlord for some documentation to support this statement above?

Coupon-mad

You've quoted the linked version to use, where you can see that you don't put your facts in para 3.  The paragraph order is as shown.

90Ninety

Coupon-mad said:

You've quoted the linked version to use, where you can see that you don't put your facts in para 3.  The paragraph order is as shown.

Apologies I had meant to say paragraph 4 , since this is where I put in my defense in my own words but based on experiences of others found on these forums 

I am reading other threads , since there are many and will add further reasoning of defense if deemed necessary . 

Coupon-mad

Para 5 surely?