Capital car park / DCB Legal Claim form - Parking at Business Leased space

Nellymoser

While you await your court date consider joining the motorists call demanding the re-launch of Govt-backed Parking Code of Practice. We so badly need protected from this greedy nasty industry.

A simple signature, share if you can. 🙏

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701453

Brightlinks

Nellymoser said:

While you await your court date consider joining the motorists call demanding the re-launch of Govt-backed Parking Code of Practice. We so badly need protected from this greedy nasty industry.

A simple signature, share if you can. 🙏

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701453

Thank you for heads up @Nellymoser
Signed for petition currently at 284.

Coupon-mad

Brightlinks said:

Claim is for not displaying permit at car park where we have a business lease.

My husband appealed to Capital car park and after that POPLA at own car leased space.

Both rejected so raised with Landlord about the nuisance of Capital Car Park they terminated their contract but their agent do come and take pictures of car without permit.

My husband appealed so letters were going at business address for debt recovery, Today Claim form appeared in the post.

 I am the keeper of the vehicle. See below-

Brightlinks said:

UPDATE
Thanks @Le_Kirk I have not received yet from the court or claimant only begging letter from claimant solicitor if I want to settle the case.

Has your case progressed yet, had your N180, put in your unavailable dates for 2025 and got to Mediation phone call stage now?

Just reminding us all of your main defence (I think?). That there was no requirement for a business leaseholder to display a permit and/or in the alternative, any such term during the pandemic lockdown in 2020 was void for impossibility because temporarily, the property Managing Agents did not provide a parking permit due to Corona virus Pandemic, but the driver displayed the business name and address on the windscreen for the avoidance of doubt.

Can you clarify, as this is a loooong thread:

Who is the Defendant? You or your husband (which of you)?

I don't understand how he can have appealed at (POPLA in his name?) but you look to be the Defendant? How did that happen?

Or were you the POPLA appellant? Which of you?

And:

Did you not include the point that the signs weren't in the same name as the Claimant? As raised by @Castle months ago (below).

Did you miss that out? Hope not.

Raise it with the Mediator on the phone and see if they understand that it kills the claim!  Should be an amusing conversation. No offering any money.

Brightlinks said:

1.            The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.         The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper.

3.            It is admitted that at all material times the defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Avia Zero Car Insurance with 2 of the named drivers permitted to use it.

4.         Defendant’s husband is a company director and has a Parking Licence from the Superior Lease Holder at the location described in the Claim Form. Property Management did not provide the Parking permit due to Corona virus Pandemic, but the driver displayed the business name and address on windscreen for avoidance of doubt.

5.         It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the lawful user permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current lease holder, whose parking licence agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6.         Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by lease holders and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. Accordingly, it is denied that there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant. It is denied there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit, and that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Brightlinks said:

Brightlinks said:

Castle said:

1) Is the defendant an individual or a company?
2) Do you have photos of the parking signs?

Defendant is Individual
yes 

found images from the appeal I made.



Castle said:

Thanks for the photos; which, confirms that the "contract" is being offered by a Sole Trader not the limited company.