Resident Parking

Struck need help Please,
I have put this together but am not sure how to format it. Some of it from templates on this great forum.

I asked Parking Control Management 5 Questions, to which to answers were unsatisfactory.

1.Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver. especially the ones on the entrance to the site on Hayward Close
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Question 1
'A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor' yet not provided to me, the consumer. I believe the agreement (if one has been provided to the Assessor) should be shared with me as well, and in any case it fails section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore any such 'contract' is a false instrument and void document:
Additional case history
Forbidding Signs: UKPC v Peenith
Forbidding Signs: UKPC v Masterson
Question 2
Not answered, it’s a simple yes or no
Question 3
Not provided, no signs on Entrance Please see my Photos that clearly show no signage on Hayward Close, this is also shown on your evidents. And the rest of your photo’s are on a another part of the estate. You have not supplied any photos of Hayward close entrance. Please see additional Photo (Entrance sign)

Also confusing signage, your sign next to one that states Resident Parking Only,
Me being a resident. Please see additional photo (Parking signs)

Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

Question 4
Really not sure if you supplied them all, but this is not a issue,

Question 5
Not Supplied or mentioned


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 _________________ 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, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, and 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’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; or park in a marked bay.
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

Additional case history
In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

IAS Appeal Operator's Response
The operator does not have to justify the loss incurred. The amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed is justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

The charge arises out of a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signage. The point has been raised that the wording on the signage is forbidding. This is not accepted. The offer for the use of the land provides a contractual license to enter such land and parking is permitted for those parked wholly within the confines of the marked bays. The contract crystallises (i.e. the user accepts the terms of the licence) at the point they enter the land. The sign then confirms in clear terms when a charge for use of the land becomes due.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to park within the marked bays.

I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents. It is contended that the implementation of parking enforcement falls under this. Also, clauses permitting parking are often restricted or altered by later provisions.

I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.

I got to know Chris Grayling quite well during Brexit,
I have spoke to him about the great GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM, he is going to look in to it. I also told him about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19. lets see what happens