Court Claim

1xvp1

I have a parking space included with my lease, and I own 100% of the flat.

In April 2024, I changed my car and received two parking tickets from UKCPM on April 4 and 8. I didn’t appeal on time because my housing association needed to update UKCPM before I could do so. However, I mistakenly emailed UKCPM directly about the change, and they never responded to inform me that I should have gone through the housing association first. My permit was only correctly updated on May 8, 2024.

From May 2024 onward, I started receiving letters from debt collectors. UKCPM told me they couldn't help since the case had been passed to them. My housing association later confirmed both tickets had been canceled, and at some point, the debt collection letters stopped, so I assumed the issue was resolved.

However, yesterday (March 6, 2025), I received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Services demanding payment of £462.23:

• Amount claimed: £362.23
• Court fee: £50
• Legal representative's cost: £50

I contacted my housing association again, but they said it might be too late to resolve.

What are my actions going from here?

Thanks.

1xvp1

To add, the legal company is Gladstones.

1xvp1

Below is my letter of claim, issued on 3 March. I just had a call back form housing association who were in touch with UKCPM who in turn said it was "too late".

However I also attached an email from housing association dated 9 January 2025 saying both tickets have been cancelled.

1xvp1

I just had another scan of the newbies thread - sorry English is not my first language (although I speak it fluently), it's quite a few words to get through! 

As per recommendation, I'm going to wait till tomorrow (5 days since issue) to fill the Acknowledgement of Service on moneyclaim.gov.uk. Then draft defence and send that to claimresponses email address - this appears to be a correct course of action?

Thanks

h2g2

Most importantly: DO NOT SUBMIT A DEFENCE WITHOUT SHARING IT FIRST

@KeithP will likely be along soon to advise you on timelines. There's nothing to be gained by delaying the acknowledgement of service, but you have plenty of time to draft a defence and a hastily prepared one could be very bad.

If your lease does include the parking space, and you own the parking space that is a strong defence. I'm in a similar position (see here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6499026/pcc-in-leasehold-space-court-claim-started-against-mc-ppc). In my case we're being the aggressors and are starting court action against the management company and PPC to kick them out.

For now: start here with your defence: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2024

The main points you'll want for your defence (I recommend not copying this word-for-word, as I'm writing in haste):

- The particulars of claim do not stipulate the breach, so DO use the Chan v Akande bit recommended in the template defence, requesting it to be struck out.

- Claimant has no landowner authority. You know this because your leasehold makes you the owner or occupier of the land in question for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and you did not authorize anyone to pursue parking charges on your land.

- In the alternative, your leasehold agreement grants you permission to park on that land. As such you have primacy of contract. Their signs offer you nothing you did not already have and thus cannot form a contract with you. Furthermore, the management company cannot vary the contract to create parking charges unilaterally, as HH DDJ Metcalf found in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]. (You should include a transcript - it's not hard to find.)

- Furthermore, the relevant PCNs were already cancelled as evidenced by the e-mail from their principle. They cannot pursue a PCN after cancelling it.

You can probably ask for costs on an indemnity basis, since it's obviously unreasonable to pursue cancelled PCNs. The PPC will deny they ever cancelled the PCNs, but you need to be clear that your contract is with the freeholder (and RMC? - I don't know the detail of your leasehold agreement) and the freeholders/management company (or their agent) confirmed for you the charges were cancelled.

I would also suggest counter-claiming £200 for trespass, citing Roger Davey vs UKPC (2012). In that case Mr Davey was awarded £150, which is close to £200 in 2025 after adjusting for inflation; if they obtained your address from the DVLA database I would further suggest asking for £250 damages for misuse of your personal data under GPDR, since they had no lawful cause to access it.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant reply.

I also suggest a counterclaim.  It tacks onto the end of the defence and costs you £35 to counterclaim for up to £300.

1xvp1

@h2g2 thank you so much for the detailed response. I scanned the lease to find any mention of parking - a bit of pain in the bum as it's a photocopy, not allowing me to search by text. In any case, here are all the clauses in lease that mention parking.

h2g2

They are likely to try to rely on the "subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord" clause.

The key defense there is Link vs Mrs P, which held that issuing parking charges is, nonetheless, an infringement of quiet enjoyment, and the right to quiet enjoyment of your property supersedes that clause.

"Subject to rules and regulations of the landlord" is reasonably interpreted as to do with estate management: the landlord may see fit ban very large cars that do not fit within the bounds of a parking space, for example, or require vehicles to be roadworthy. Breaches of of these rules and regulations would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property) since there is (I'm guessing) no clause in the lease allowing for arbitrary charges like this.

The leasehold agreement will include terms explaining what costs you are liable for - typically ground rent and a portion of the service charge. (And maybe some other explicitly specified costs.) EVEN IF your car was not taxed or licensed, the landlord would not be able to simply drop a £170 charge on you for it, but would have to pursue you for damages arising from the breach of the contract.

There is a grey-list of contract terms considered unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Interpreting the "rules and regulations" clause as allowing additional onerous charges to be charged to you would fall foul them, particularly 10., 11., and even more particularly 14.

EDIT: I should add, to your counterclaim, an order forbidding them from issuing PCNs on your land and requiring them to remove all signs offering a contract to park there.

1xvp1

Good afternoon

Took me a few days to understand the peculiarities of defence but I've produced something using the templates. The AOS was sent out on 8 March and is marked as received on 10 March.

As suggested I used the template for Gladstone legal and added 6 to 12 as my own, thanks to the help from @h2g2. 

- Does this look like strong defence?
- Do I need to provide evidence (parts of lease + confirmation from housing association that the PCN were cancelled) in the Defence form?

Please find defence below with my own paragraphs highlighted in bold, with preceding and following template paragraphs included.

Full defence also here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MOQpLMueZ1mJPgOhePyitvDiKesgCQo79L-VAYWrIMc/edit?usp=sharing

____

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

*FIRST 4 PARAGRAPHS OF THE TEMPLATE*

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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 was the registered keeper and driver.

6. The Claimant has no authority to issue parking charges on the Defendant’s property. The Defendant's leasehold agreement makes the Defendant the owner or occupier of the land in question for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant did not authorise the Claimant or any other party to pursue parking charges on this land.

7. In the alternative, the Defendant’s leasehold agreement explicitly grants permission to park on the land in question. As such, the Defendant holds primacy of contract. The Claimant's signs offer no new rights or agreements that the Defendant did not already have under the lease. Therefore, no contract can be formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. Furthermore, the management company cannot unilaterally alter the lease to create parking charges, as established in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016].

8. The relevant PCNs have already been cancelled, as evidenced by the email correspondence from the Claimant’s principal. The Claimant cannot pursue a PCN that has already been cancelled.

9. The Defendant seeks costs on an indemnity basis, given that the Claimant is pursuing a claim for cancelled PCNs, which is unreasonable. The Defendant’s contract is with the freeholder and/or management company, which has confirmed the cancellation of these charges. If the Claimant denies cancellation, the Defendant will provide evidence to substantiate this claim.

10. The Defendant further counterclaims for damages of £200 for trespass, in line with the case of Roger Davey v UKPC (2012), adjusted for inflation to approximately £250. In addition, if the Claimant obtained the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA, the Defendant claims £250 in damages for misuse of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the Claimant had no lawful cause to access this data.

10. The Claimant may try to rely on the clause “subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord,” but case law, notably Link v Mrs P, establishes that issuing parking charges infringes on the Defendant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property. This right supersedes any such clause in the lease.

11. The Defendant relies on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which deems certain contract terms to be unfair. The interpretation of “subject to rules and regulations of the landlord” to justify additional charges for parking would fall foul of unfair contract terms, particularly clauses 10, 11, and 14 of the Act.

12. The Defendant also seeks an order forbidding the Claimant from issuing any further PCNs on the Defendant’s land and requiring the removal of any signs offering a contract to park.

13. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

*FOLLOWED BY REMAINING TEMPLATE PARAGRAPHS*

Coupon-mad

Good defence!

A Part 20 counterclaim would need stating and pleading separately, with a heading underneath the defence.

IANAL but with our experience here, I think a cc for trespass is unlikely to succeed.

You'd be better to plead it as a breach of the DPA 2018 and UK GDPR and you can rely on cases like Simon Clay v CEL, as several posters did successfully. Search the forum for those.

You can argue that the C should never have accessed your DVLA data at all because this is your space within your lease. Further, the PCNs were in fact cancelled, so there is no legitimate interest in pursuing the charges, which had no lawful justification from the start anyway.

h2g2

As C-M says, the trespass counter-claim is most likely to work if you've specifically warned them off touching your car and they proceed to issue PCNs anyway. She is also more experienced with the actual court room than I, so if she says not to use it I would follow her advice.

If you do choose to go with it, I would note that R Davey was awarded £150, which is around £200 in today's money. Not £200 which became £250 in today's money.