Gladstones letter before claim

The driver really needs help : (

Defence

On xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx the driver had visited their sister, which they have a visitors pass for.
The driver waits for a visitors bay to become empty so parks in an undesignated place in the estate not in the way of pedestrians or other motorists and then keep a eye out from there sister's window.
The driver has been doing this for roughly 6 years now and has never been an issue and visitors bays come available quite often.
There is no wording on the signage to state how long I can remain here otherwise it just states "By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms..."

The permit was displayed so the claimants operatives were aware I had means to be on the estate.

1. The Signage Is Not of a Standard To Constitue A Contract
The signage at the site was not of a standard to constitute a !!!8216;contract!!!8217; between myself and the claimant. Without a contract there cannot be a !!!8216;breach of terms!!!8217;.

2. Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 and !!!8216;Right Of Cancellation!!!8217; Applies
If it was assumed a contract did exist it would be categorised as a !!!8216;distance contract!!!8217; under Consumer Contracts Regulations. As such I would have had !!!8216;right of cancellation!!!8217; from said contract.

3. The Claimant Has No Standing to Bring a Case
Despite being asked, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have any authority to collect parking charges on the land in question.

Particulars of defence.

1. The wording on the sign in question says that "parking in permitted for: vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windshield and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay" but does not say how long you can wait outside of these "rules".

2. The Claimant Has No Standing to Bring a Case
Despite being asked, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have any authority to collect parking charges on the land in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to on what terms they are permitted to operate by the landowner by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contract.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKING AND PROPERTY I
MANAGEMENT LIMITED
OCEAN HOUSE
12th FLOOR
THE RING
BRACKNELL
RG12 1AX

-and-

XXX

___________________________________________
DEFENCE
_______________________________________________

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity . The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]
5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her 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 Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy 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.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents 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.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.



Can I inbox coupon mad in regards to the tenancy agreement if claus's shall be put in under point 6?

Kind regards