IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Multiple county court claims?

12467

Comments

  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Thanks - legal specifics always good to have.

    Yes, I sent a Letter Before Claim (content in my previous post ; that was pretty much as per the letter I sent). I submitted the claim via MCOL on 2/2/19, also as per my previous post.

    I am seeking reimbursement of the one ticket I paid, plus £20 paid to IAS for appeal. These are my direct quantifiable costs, excluding stationery and postage.

    Although I paid the penalty (semi-) voluntarily, my position is that this was under duress due to the repeated threats of legal action that I was receiving. I had also taken the view at the time that this amount was worth paying in order to put an end to the matter, which it didn't. They kept pursuing me for another three.

    I am claiming trespass.
  • rachity
    rachity Posts: 103
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    As Coupon-mad has suggested (above), Protection from Harassment Act as well?


    https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html
    CAVEAT LECTOR
  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 24 April 2019 at 7:01AM
    Thanks. Yes, harassment seems relevant and has crossed my mind before. I haven't used it (yet) simply because I wasn't sure of the legal position, but with reference to case law such as that I may do.

    They are counter-claiming, so I now have to submit a defence to that counter-claim. The counter-claim is for one of the other PCNs which had already been passed to the solicitors for recovery. (They haven't mentioned the other two.) Specifically £100 charge + £60 time/resources facilitating recovery of charge + interest + £25 issue fee + costs.

    Some queries, if anyone can advise:

    1. In my defence to counter-claim can I reference such cases as UKCPM v Mr D and R. Davey v UKPC without having transcript or full details?

    2. I haven't claimed harassment so far. Can I do so now, at the point of defending a counter-claim, or is it too late?

    3. When referring to an organisation: 'Them' or 'it'? Singular seems more technically correct but I tend to think plural would read better.

    This is an ongoing draft of my defence to the counter-claim. Any constructive comments would be appreciated. I have never done one of these before and research time is limited.


    I am responding to a counter-claim made by [X] (the Claimant).

    I received four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) from the Claimant while my vehicle was parked on my own property at [X]. The parking space in which my vehicle was parked is demised to me in my lease. I have leasehold title, exclusive occupation and the right to quiet enjoyment. The Claimant does not have the right to enter my property to affix notices to my vehicle, and in doing so has committed multiple trespass offences.

    My claim is for reimbursement of [X] which I have paid as a result of the Claimant's actions.

    In response, the Claimant has counter-claimed for payment of charges relating to one further PCN, numbered [x]

    In its defence to my claim, the Claimant relies on an agreement it made with the freeholder dated [X], which it maintains enables it to issue a parking charge to any vehicle parked at [X] in breach of its parking regulations. My lease, however, takes precedence over any such agreement. The Claimant does not have any right to operate its business on my property. The freeholder has certain rights, but only within the conditions of the lease. These rights are very specific and do not provide for the introduction of permit parking.

    No contract, either explicit or implied, exists or has ever existed between the Claimant and myself.

    The Claimant states in its defence to my claim that "residents are often allocated parking bays when purchasing a leasehold..." and "most leases contain provisions...". This non-specific wording indicates that the claimant has not reviewed the leases which apply to the property on which it operates, which shows a remarkable lack of due diligence. The Claimant appears to assume that the freeholder has unlimited rights, which is not the case. The leaseholders enjoy the right to park within their own demised property by virtue of their individual leases.

    I maintain that for the Claimant to pursue me for any penalty charge arising from my vehicle being parked on my property is wholly unreasonable. Since the Claimant was adamant that the charges would be pursued through the courts (and had issued a Letter Before Claim) my only available course of action was to respond in kind by bringing a claim against it. I am seeking reimbursement of the bare minimum of costs which I have incurred as a result of the Claimant's actions, and have excluded stationery, postage and interest.

    The Claimant has stated that my actions are unreasonable but I believe it is clear that they are not.

    For the reasons given above I contend that the parking charge which is the subject of the counter-claim is not reasonable, lawful or enforceable.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,572
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    plus £20 paid to IAS for appeal.
    Do you mean you paid the IAS for a ''non standard'' appeal (I thought it was £15?).

    Oh dear. That's a formal ADR, astonishingly, and is worded so that you accepted it is binding on you, AFAIK. In the T&Cs it makes you sign you life away...OH DEAR.

    That ''pay for your kangaroo court *decision* then be bound by the rejection'' is to be avoided like the plague.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 24 April 2019 at 10:04AM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Oh dear. That's a formal ADR, astonishingly, and is worded so that you accepted it is binding on you, AFAIK. In the T&Cs it makes you sign you life away...OH DEAR.

    From memory I had a feeling that was the case, but having checked the appeal decision from IAS I don't think it is.

    The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator’s role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish. The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and therefore that a Parking Charge Notice was lawfully issued. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that a valid permit is clearly displayed in the vehicle at all times in order to conform with the terms and conditions of the parking operator’s signage displayed at this site. The landowner's contract with the parking operator means that, despite the Appellant having the right to park on the site, he must abide by the terms for doing so. Having considered all the issues raised by both parties in this appeal I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this appeal is dismissed.

    To emphasise: "A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish."

    (Also, the defence to my claim did not mention the appeal, which further suggests that it is not legally binding since it should have been their Exhibit A if it was.)

    I have got to get my defence to the counter-claim out today, really, and will proceed on the basis that the IAS appeal does not undermine my case unless advised otherwise.

    In the meantime, any further suggestions / input appreciated.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,572
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    OK so a defence to a counter claim needs to deal with the particulars of the counter claim and either deny or admit each line/matter raised. Have you done that?

    Also you've written it in the 1st person. You should write it as the Claimant (as you started this case, you remain the Claimant).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 24 April 2019 at 12:19PM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    OK so a defence to a counter claim needs to deal with the particulars of the counter claim and either deny or admit each line/matter raised. Have you done that?

    Thanks for the advice. I haven't entirely done that and will restructure my response a little bit accordingly.
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Also you've written it in the 1st person. You should write it as the Claimant (as you started this case, you remain the Claimant).

    That was intentional and as instructed by the court. Notice of Transfer of Proceedings states, under 'To all parties':

    TO THE CLAIMANT -

    Please note, as the defendant has filed a counterclaim you are required to file a response... As you will be responding as the defendant to the counterclaim please read and complete the response forms yourself listing yourself as the defendant.


    That is unambiguous, and I have done as instructed.


    Revised defence. I will be sending this today unless there are any major roadblocks.

    I am responding to a counterclaim made by [X] (the Claimant). To briefly summarise the circumstances, which are relevant to this defence:

    I received four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) from the Claimant while my vehicle was parked on my own property at [X]. The land on which my vehicle was parked is demised to me in my lease (evidence in Document 1). I have leasehold title, exclusive occupation and the right to quiet enjoyment. The Claimant does not have the right to enter my property to affix notices to my vehicle, and in doing so has committed multiple trespass offences.

    My claim is for reimbursement of [X] which I have paid as a result of the Claimant's actions. This comprises [X] paid to contest the charge and [X] penalty charge paid to the claimant's debt recovery agency (evidence in Document 2). I am not claiming stationery or postage costs, or interest.

    Since the Claimant was adamant that the charges would be pursued through the courts, and had issued a Letter Before Claim, my only available course of action was to respond in kind by bringing a claim against it. The Claimant has stated that my actions in doing so were unreasonable and has counter-claimed for payment of charges relating to one further PCN, numbered [X].

    To address the points made in the counterclaim:

    (12) The Claimant relies on an agreement it made with the freeholder dated [X], which it maintains enables it to issue a parking charge to any vehicle parked at [X] in breach of its parking regulations. My lease, however, takes precedence over any such agreement. The Claimant does not have any right to operate its business on my property. The freeholder has certain rights, but only within the conditions of the lease. These rights are very specific and do not provide for the introduction of permit parking.

    The Claimant states in its defence to my claim that "residents are often allocated parking bays when purchasing a leasehold..." and "most leases contain provisions...". This non-specific wording indicates that the claimant has not reviewed the leases which apply to the property on which it operates, which shows a clear lack of due diligence. The Claimant appears to assume that the freeholder has unlimited rights, which is not the case. Leaseholders at [X] enjoy the right to park within their own demised property by virtue of their individual leases.

    (13) I do not dispute that PCN [X] remains unpaid, although I dispute that it is reasonable or lawful.

    (14) I do not dispute the circumstances of the PCN being issued. I would reiterate, however, that the claimant was trespassing on my property when it was affixed to my vehicle.

    (15) I do not dispute that there was no valid permit on display in the vehicle. I would reiterate, however, that I am not legally obliged to display a permit.

    (16) No response required.

    (17) The claimant continues to claim charges in relation to [X]. I maintain that for the Claimant to pursue me for any penalty charge arising from my vehicle being parked on my property is wholly unreasonable. This charge is not lawful or enforceable.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,572
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    TO THE CLAIMANT -

    Please note, as the defendant has filed a counterclaim you are required to file a response... As you will be responding as the defendant to the counterclaim please read and complete the response forms yourself listing yourself as the defendant.

    That is unambiguous, and I have done as instructed.
    OK but not ''I''. It's a defence so ''the Defendant does not dispute that...''

    Not sure I like this:
    I do not dispute the circumstances of the PCN being issued.
    I would dispute that!

    Your responses sound too negative to me - a series of ''I do not dispute''!

    You need more positive ''DISPUTE'' sentences like;

    ''the Defendant disputes the standing of the counter claimant''

    and

    ''The Defendant disputes that any relevant contract or relevant obligation existed''

    and

    ''The Defendant disputes that there is any similarity with the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case in terms of signage, offer/contract or matter of fact, and denied that any commercial justification can exist to support this charge against existing residents with primacy of contract''

    and

    ''The Defendant disputes that anything of value was on offer to the Defendant that was not already his by right, grant or easement''

    and

    ''The Defendant disputes that any consideration flowed between the parties because the Defendant has never granted the counter claimant the right (implied or express) to trespass in their demised parking space and thus the basic elements of an agreement or contract do not exist''.

    You have to distinguish your case from the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case, where in Para 199 the Supreme Court Judges said:

    ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

    Not so in your case - no 'legitimate interests' are served.

    Here are a couple of defence points that are usually included in such cases:
    - The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    - The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents. Accordingly, it is denied that there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant and denies that there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit.

    You also need to deny the costs they will have tried to add (presumably). You can copy the section under 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' right to the end, here:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75711757#post75711757

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 24 April 2019 at 11:13PM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    OK but not ''I''. It's a defence so ''the Defendant does not dispute that...''

    Noted. Changed.

    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Your responses sound too negative to me - a series of ''I do not dispute''!

    Noted, but many of their points amount to "we stuck a PCN on your vehicle" and "you were not displaying a valid permit". Those are matters of fact. I have no reason or basis to argue with them. (Plus I am trying to keep this to a single A4 page ; I thought it could be argued that I have failed to make my points clearly and concisely otherwise.)

    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Here are a couple of defence points that are usually included in such cases:

    Thanks. Duly incorporated.

    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    You also need to deny the costs they will have tried to add (presumably).

    They haven't quantified costs. They have just said "costs".


    Revised version:

    This defence is made in response to a counterclaim brought by [X] (the Claimant) against [X] (the Defendant). To briefly summarise the circumstances, which are relevant to this defence:

    The Defendant received four Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) from the Claimant while the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on his own property at [X]. The land on which the vehicle was parked is demised to the Defendant [ref. Document 1] who has leasehold title, exclusive occupation and the right to quiet enjoyment. The Claimant does not have the right to enter the property to affix notices to the vehicle in question, and in doing so has committed multiple trespass offences.

    The Defendant’s claim is for reimbursement of [X] paid as a direct result of the Claimant's actions. This comprises [X] paid to contest the charge and [X] penalty charge paid to the Claimant's debt recovery agency [ref. Document 2]. The Defendant is not claiming stationery or postage costs, or interest.

    Since the Claimant was adamant that the charges would be pursued through the courts, and had issued a Letter Before Claim, the only course of action available to the Defendant was to respond in kind by bringing a claim against it. The Claimant has stated that the Defendant’s actions in doing so were unreasonable and has counter-claimed for payment of charges relating to one further PCN, numbered [X].

    To address the points made in the counterclaim:

    (12) The Claimant relies on an agreement it made with the freeholder dated [X], which it maintains enables it to issue a parking charge to any vehicle parked at [X] in breach of its parking regulations. The Defendant’s lease, however, takes precedence over any such agreement. The Claimant does not have any right to operate its business on the Defendant’s property. The freeholder, meanwhile, has certain rights but only within the conditions of the lease. These rights are very specific and do not provide for the introduction of permit parking.

    The Claimant states in its defence to the claim that "residents are often allocated parking bays when purchasing a leasehold..." and "most leases contain provisions...". This non-specific wording indicates that the claimant has not reviewed the leases which apply to the property on which it operates, which shows a clear lack of due diligence for which the Defendant is now paying the price. The Claimant appears to assume that the freeholder has unlimited rights, which is not the case. Leaseholders at [X] enjoy the right to park within their own demised property by virtue of their individual leases.

    (13) The claimant continues to claim charges in relation to PCN [X]. The Defendant maintains that for the Claimant to pursue any penalty charge arising from his vehicle being parked on his property is wholly unreasonable. For the reasons given here this charge is not lawful or enforceable.

    (14) The Defendant acknowledges the circumstances of the PCN being issued and would reiterate that the claimant was trespassing on his property when this notice was affixed to his vehicle.

    (15) The Defendant’s vehicle, at all material times, was parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    The Claimant or Freeholder must, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents. Accordingly, it is denied that there was any agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant and denied that there was any obligation to display a permit.

    (16) The Defendant acknowledges correspondence entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant, wherein the Claimant made reference to the case of ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis. The Defendant disputes that there is any similarity with the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case in terms of signage, offer/contract or matter of fact, and denies that any commercial justification can exist to support this charge against a resident with primacy of contract.

    (17-21) As per (13).
  • wotnott
    wotnott Posts: 69
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Thanks Coupon-mad for your assistance. Defence went out in the post today.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards