bw legal - Final demand from Link parking

Coupon-mad

Challenge landowner authority and exactly what date the new changes went live, and how residents were informed (or not). It would be up to Link to prove that the new signs were not covered by bin-bags in that first week AND that residents were informed in advance AND that the signs were very prominent, legible and adequately lit at night.

Include your story that you told us:

They say I have 2 parking tickets. One from 4 years ago the day they put the signs up - after 4 years of no signage or parking issues. I didn't really notice the signs at night when I parked where I have for 4 years.For research after checking the signage upon entry - the signs were covered up with bin bags. I have no idea what I wrote on their website to appeal it as it was 4 years ago but I wised up with this second one as I do have a permit. There are 15 parking spaces with a disabled sign and my landlord's sign right in front of my building. 

There is then a tree and the 3 more spaces with nothing on it. These spaces are between my building and another building. If I was driving I would get to the sign for my landlord first - which notes that my permit entitles me to park. The final space ends before the wall where a sign has sneakily been put up (wasn't always there) saying it's another landlord (please see 3rd picture - I was parked in bay 3). I think this was done in error because if I park in bay 1 or 2 till now, no problem, I have literally been parking here for years to keep the disabled spaces clear for the disabled.

Show us your draft asap.

Your deadline can't be March 14th as that's a Saturday.

Donuts0409

It says 10 days before and the WS hasn't arrived. My hearing is set for the 24th. Panicking now.

Donuts0409

If it's working days I have until tomorrow. I was just going to send my documents in 1 scroll. Do I need to write anything? I thought I was prepared. There are no signs on entry, they face the other way so you see them on exit. They were also covered by bin bags by a very long time. I didn't even notice when the signs got put up. Scared @Coupon-mad

Gr1pr

Its 10 days, straight days, so assume Friday at 4pm, not Saturday

Your WS plus Exhibits bundle should be in pdf format

Coupon-mad

Do I need to write anything?

Of course. Your WS.

Just as the NEWBIES thread post 2 tells you.

It is your story written in the first person and referring to exhibits by number.

All pages numbered.

All paragraphs numbers

All exhibits numbered.

Takes maybe half an hour to do, especially as I already advised you what to put and you know the recommended exhibits from the list in the sticky thread.

Show us your draft.

Donuts0409

1.  parked in the parking area adjacent to my building for approximately five years without issue.
2. During that time there were no visible signs indicating that parking was restricted or managed by the claimant.
3. The claimant alleges that two parking charge notices were issued to my vehicle.
4. The first alleged parking event occurred approximately four years ago (during covid restrictions), on or around the same time that new signage (unbeknownst to myself or other tenants) was introduced to the area.
5. Prior to that date there had been no parking enforcement or clear signage indicating that parking terms applied.
6. The Defendant’s tenancy agreement contains provisions relating to parking on land owned by the landlord. Relevant clauses (6.49–6.54) regulate the type of vehicles that may be parked and prohibit obstruction or parking in non-designated areas.
7. Clause 6.51 states that residents must not park in communal areas or gardens except in a designated parking area. This indicates that parking is permitted within designated parking spaces.
8. The tenancy agreement does not mention the Claimant, nor does it require the Defendant to enter into any contract with a private parking enforcement company.
9. The tenancy agreement also does not provide for any parking charges or financial penalties issued by third parties.
10. The Defendant therefore submits that the tenancy agreement governs the parking arrangements on the land and that any parking scheme introduced later cannot override or vary the contractual terms of the tenancy.
11. This principle is supported by case law including Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, where the court confirmed that a parking company cannot override rights granted under a residential tenancy or lease.
12. The parking area contains approximately fifteen parking spaces, including spaces marked for disabled parking and signage relating to the Defendant’s landlord.
13. The signage visible upon entering the area relates to the Defendant’s landlord and indicates that permit holders are entitled to park.
14.  Beyond these spaces there is a tree and three additional parking bays located between the Defendant’s building and a neighbouring building.
15. These spaces do not have clear signage associated with them indicating that they are subject to different parking terms.
16. At the end of the final space, near a wall, a sign referring to another landlord has been installed. This sign was not always present and appears to have been installed later.
17. The Defendant was parked in the third of these bays.
18. Given the layout, a driver entering the parking area would reasonably believe that these spaces were covered by the landlord’s permit signage located at the entrance.
19. The presence of multiple landlords’ signs in close proximity creates confusion as to which rules apply to which spaces.
20. The Defendant has parked in these spaces for several years without issue and has done so while deliberately leaving disabled bays available for residents who require them.
21.  The first parking charge is alleged to have occurred around the time that new signage was introduced to the area.
22. Prior to this there had been approximately five years during which the Defendant parked in the same area without any parking enforcement or visible signage.
23. The Defendant did not notice any clear signage on the evening in question when parking the vehicle. It was dark and the signs were not prominent.
24. After later inspecting the area, the Defendant observed that the newly installed signs had been covered with bin bags during the initial period following installation.
25. This raises serious doubt as to whether the signage was visible or capable of forming any contractual agreement at the time.
26. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of:

• the exact date the parking scheme was introduced
• 
  
• the exact date the signage was installed and uncovered
• 
  
• evidence that residents were informed in advance of the change
• 
  
• evidence that the signage was sufficiently prominent, legible, and adequately illuminated at night

1. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to operate on the land and to issue parking charges to residents.
2. The Defendant requires the Claimant to produce the unredacted contract with the landowner showing:

• the boundaries of the land covered by the agreement
• 
  
• the date the agreement commenced
• 
  
• the authority granted to the Claimant to issue parking charges
• the authority to pursue court proceedings in its own name

1. The Claimant has added additional sums described as “debt recovery” or similar costs to the original parking charge.
2. These additional costs were not part of any contract and represent an attempt at double recovery.
3. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis allowed a parking charge where signage was clear and prominent but did not permit the addition of further recovery costs beyond the parking charge itself.
4. For the reasons stated above, the Defendant submits that:

• the tenancy agreement governs parking rights
• 
  
• the signage was unclear, newly introduced, and potentially obscured
• 
  
• the parking area contains confusing and conflicting signage
• 
  
• the Claimant has not demonstrated landowner authority
• 
  
• the additional charges are unjustified

1. The Defendant therefore respectfully requests that the court dismiss the claim.

1. Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

The numbering messed up when I pasted it. I haven't added the exhibits yet. I have 20 but unsure if various emails should be added. So thinking, exhibit a - tenancy page referring to parking, exhibit b - the letter awarding my permit and stating I will be given one by September 1st, ex. c and d an email from 2 separate managing agents saying they will sort it, ex e an email from link to managing agents saying that they failed to respond in time, ex f picture of the bays, ex g pictures of sign noticeable only on exit, and the ex h and ex i 2 varying signs on ownership of different bays. What do you think? Are you proud?

Coupon-mad

"Are you proud?"

yes!

But:

"I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true."

Nope. Read recent ones. That SoT is five years out of date!

You also have no intro or headings. Copy someone's WS style, headers & ending.

This is how the forum search works best and it won't take long to find one with the right top & bottom!

Donuts0409

I hate to admit, I don't know how to search on the forum for the most up to date. I can't find one but will add in the headings as suggested. I removed them previously.

Coupon-mad

You simply put:

parking witness statement true

…into the search box.

Then change to NEWEST.

Read a few!

Donuts0409

Okay, a slog but found something. Added the headings for paragraphs, exhibits and costs assessment - having to take the day of work on a performance day. Will miss the matinee. I wanna send it to the court in the morning. Thank you @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad