N1SDT Claim Form from UK CPM/Gladstones

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Why did it take so long for you to send in your defence? When it was sent, was it sent before 4:00pm or after.

You may be unlucky with this, if it was after the court closed.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXX
Between
UK CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXX
(Defendant)

DEFENCE

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.


1.1 The Particulars refer to the material location as 'XXXX. The Defendant has, since XX/XX/XXXX, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location.

1.2 When these charges took place in XXX, the Claimant had only just taken over managing the parking restrictions on site and began a predatory parking regime targeting residents even while the Defendant and other residents tried to obtain new permits after the previous parking management company (UKPC) had supplied them to both the Defendant and other residents on site. The Claimant unilaterally attempted to foist upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.

1.3 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.4 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

2) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

3) The Defendants residence has no direct access to the street and can only be accessed via a communal courtyard, the Defendant has a letter from their housing association who confirmed with the landowner’s management company in April 2009 that the Defendant is entitled to park legitimately in the courtyard when loading and unloading their vehicle etc. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

4) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes 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 residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

5) 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. 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.

6) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

7) 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.

7.1 The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

8) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been using that communal space for years to load and unload vehicles and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

9) The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

9.1 Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract. 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. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

9.2 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

10) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

11) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

12) The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to each of the original £100 parking charges plus £XX.XX interest, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

13) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

14) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed


Date