Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • JimmyChan
    • By JimmyChan 27th Feb 17, 11:39 PM
    • 61Posts
    • 52Thanks
    JimmyChan
    County Court Claim AM Parking Services Ltd
    • #1
    • 27th Feb 17, 11:39 PM
    County Court Claim AM Parking Services Ltd 27th Feb 17 at 11:39 PM
    After batting away numerous PCNs over a number of years using this site for parking in my own space and surrounding roads I now have a County Court Claim sent to me. I have acknowledged the claim. I would be very grateful is some eyes could look over my defence.

    Preamble: I owned the registered leasehold of a property with both the flat & parking space demised to me. One day signs (“contracts to park”) went up around the estate and a permit to park was posted under my door (no other information given). I then kept getting PCNs in my own space & on the public highways around the estate (they are public I have checked). This PCN (which the claim is for) I received a “Notice to Owner” I then appealed to parking company (in time of course) but received nothing more. Fast forward to over year since I sold the leasehold and I received a LBC, which I responded to asking for more detail, then I received the claim. Due to their lack of information I don’t know if the PCN was for parking in my own space or for parking on the public highway.

    My defence:

    It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle noted at the date of alleged breach. However, the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds: -

    1. Notwithstanding that the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012); the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver.
    2. The Claimant alleges the driver breached “the terms of parking” but no terms are given nor is any valid breach established.
    3. The place of the alleged breach is given as “land at Coriander Drive Maidstone Kent”, there are many registered parcels of land in and around Coriander Drive as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.
    4. AM Parking Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of any land around Coriander Drive. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier, I have reasonable belief that they do not have authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
    5. The Defendant owned at the time of the alleged breach the registered leasehold for one of the above-mentioned parcels of land. Which included a parking space as part of the property which had been demised to the Defendant.
    6. The leasehold held by the Defendant at the time of the alleged breach, with no amendments mentions no terms which must be followed in order to park on the leased section of land. Nor does it mention the Claimants authority to operate a parking scheme on the leased section of land.
    7. Coriander Drive has been adopted by Kent County Council and is marked as a “Publicly Maintainable Highway” in the Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer under the Unique Street Reference Number of 24202170. Signs have been placed alongside the public road stating it is a private road, this makes it impossible to identify where the public highway ends and where the private land starts (and therefore there is no way to know what land the “terms” apply).
    8. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative’s costs.
    9. No contract, terms and conditions or sum payable were ever accepted by any driver.
    10. The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur action).

    Any help will be gratefully received.
Page 6
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 25th Aug 17, 11:14 AM
    • 2,491 Posts
    • 3,039 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You need payslips to prove you lost earnings, or confirmation you had to take holiday. £95 is the max as well, not the set amount, and is for a half days reimbursement.

    You want a short bullet list with your CPR27.14 costs claim as to how they have been unreasonable.
    If yorue brave you coudl go for 50% of a band D fee eaerner. About £60ph.
    • JimmyChan
    • By JimmyChan 7th Feb 18, 11:57 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    JimmyChan
    Sorry for the extremely long time in waiting to update this thread, but the judge in this case advised me not to brag on social media. So I thought it was best to wait a month to calm down from my win in case I came across as bragging. Then some personal circumstance happened and it now we are 5 months later!

    As it has been a while, so I am just going to stick to the facts I can easily recall. After letting the judge rip their representative apart he sided with me and in his summing up he used to word “unreasonable.” After he summed up I asked if I could have my costs, he asked what my costs were, I asked for my loss of leave and my bus travel which he allowed. I then went on to ask for my printing, stationary & printing costs, he said “this is small claims, you cannot claim that cost,” very shakily I pointed him to the civil procedure rule 27.14(2)(g) and pointed out he himself had said they had acted unreasonable in his summing up. He smiled and said “I can see you have done your homework,” and allowed my stationary costs. Then I asked for “10 hours for researching, preparing & drafting two defence documents and letters to the court about the Claimant’s Behaviour.” The judge seemed shocked at the 10 hours I had asked for, at which point I pointed out that the litigate in person rate is just £19 where are a trainee solicitors rate is £118 an hour (in Maidstone). So a lay person is expected to take 6 times longer than someone who not even full solicitor. The judge accepted this and allowed all my costs: £95 for loss of leave, £5.20 for bus travel, £15 stationary and £190 for time spent, £305.20!

    He then asked me if I really wanted to continue with my counter claim, I nodded. He then said we would break for lunch, but that I would have to show him how on earth he could award me the £750 I was claiming.

    When we came back the judge said that the Data Protection claim should be dealt with using the Information Commissioner Office. Luckily I had checked this the night before and pointed out that the ICO can only issue fines and cannot claim damages on my behalf, which he seemed satisfied with. I began by showing that I owned the leasehold and the entire property had been demised to me. The judge seemed happy that I had exclusive rights to the land. I then showed that I had put them on notice that this was my land and that they should not place anything else on my vehicle, and I would take them to court if they did. I then showed that they had accessed my details from the DVLA 4 times, the judge agreed this had taken place. I then took him through Vidal-Hall et all v Google Inc that it established misuse of personal details is a tort which I think he accepted, and then we moved to Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Limited where the £750 number comes from. This is where it fell down, as soon as the judge heard that it had effected Halliday’s credit rating rather than just having endless threating letter’s sent to them he made up his mind that it doesn’t apply to parking charges.

    In the end he awarded nominal sums of £10 for trespass to my vehicle and then £10 for 3 of the data protection breaches (the judge had assumed that first one was issued correctly). I then forgot to ask for must costs in filing my counter claim (the court fee). But overall I had cost AM Parking £345.20.

    Things that keep me up at night wishing I had done differently: I had spent too much time making sure I didn’t lose rather than making sure I won. I wish I had taken some of the small claims wins for parking tickets which, while not binding, would have persuaded the judge that awarding £250 for data breaches was not unreasonable, rather than the £10 he did. I also wish I had made it clearer to the judge how they had used the wrong V888 forms and that the contract they had could in no way have ever applied to my land, showing it was not negligence that meant they had issued the charge incorrectly.

    Overall a fun day out!
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Feb 18, 12:02 PM
    • 3,240 Posts
    • 4,286 Thanks
    waamo
    Have they coughed up yet?
    This space for hire.
    • JimmyChan
    • By JimmyChan 7th Feb 18, 12:05 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    JimmyChan
    Yep my big fat cheque turned up a week later
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 7th Feb 18, 12:10 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,307 Thanks
    pappa golf
    a hat trick for them , if vthis way not you http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117865&pid=1354709&st=0!!!entr %20%20y1354709

    poor , ppc , my heart bleeds (not)
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • JimmyChan
    • By JimmyChan 7th Feb 18, 12:13 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    JimmyChan
    Nope wasn't me, but reading that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 7th Feb 18, 12:18 PM
    • 1,712 Posts
    • 2,305 Thanks
    Castle
    Things that keep me up at night wishing I had done differently: I had spent too much time making sure I didn’t lose rather than making sure I won. I wish I had taken some of the small claims wins for parking tickets which, while not binding, would have persuaded the judge that awarding £250 for data breaches was not unreasonable, rather than the £10 he did. I also wish I had made it clearer to the judge how they had used the wrong V888 forms and that the contract they had could in no way have ever applied to my land, showing it was not negligence that meant they had issued the charge incorrectly.

    Overall a fun day out!
    Originally posted by JimmyChan
    Perhaps you should have included damages for harassment under the 1997 Act and used Ferguson v British Gas.
    • JimmyChan
    • By JimmyChan 7th Feb 18, 12:52 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    JimmyChan
    Perhaps you should have included damages for harassment under the 1997 Act and used Ferguson v British Gas.
    I failed really at convincing the judge that them trespassing and breaking the DPA had caused me much harm (£40's worth) so getting him on board with the harassment idea would have been beyond my skills.
    • SWEETPEAS
    • By SWEETPEAS 20th Mar 18, 9:30 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    SWEETPEAS
    AM parking services at it again...
    So AM Parking Services are set to want me ti Court.

    For giving me a ticket on land that according to HMRC land registry they didnt control.

    Frustratingly i never counterclaimed for misuse of data by obtaining my Infomation without due cause.

    However despite a clear land registry map being supplied in my defence they seem to still want their day in Court which is more or an inconvienence than anything.

    They have failed to provide information at appropriate times ie contract with the landowner and frankly the map which is a saterlite image highlighted to suit themselves is somewhat of a joke, if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the courts.

    All skeleton is in now basically stating they are operating outside the area they were instructed so therefore there can be no contract.

    I would welcome any tips as to represent myself best in court as im not legally trained in any way and am up against the same company many others have face Gladstones...

    Many thanks
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 20th Mar 18, 9:38 PM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    would welcome any tips as to represent myself best in court
    JimmyChan started this thread because he needed help and advice on his parking issue.

    He didn't just jump in on someone else's.

    Be like JimmyChan
    • SWEETPEAS
    • By SWEETPEAS 20th Mar 18, 10:43 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    SWEETPEAS
    Posted in wrong place in error
    @
    Lamilad

    Reposted
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

120Posts Today

1,283Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin