Loading/Unloading outside my property

Take a look at ​CS038 Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal (Tenancy trumps signage).[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your response DoaM do you think i should focus on this case for my defence statement?

'Dear Sirs' XXXXXXXX UKPC

The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any sum at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Statement of Defence as already filed.

The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, and I rely on that document as a true account. A copy follows this Witness Statement.

I am an unrepresented consumer who has no experience of representing myself in the County Court.

I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxx. I also assert that I was the registered keeper of that vehicle on the date 29/12/2016. I can also confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle.

1 . I stopped outside the entrance of my flat to unload a 40 inch television and 8 bags of grocery shopping. (this cannot reasonably be carried from my legal parking spot)
2 . My lease imposes no Loading /unloading conditions although a permit for parking is displayed purely for the convenience of the claimant's parking attendant.

3 . No parking has taken place therefore no Parking charge can be issued.

(A) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Highway Code talk about "parking","waiting", "loading or unloading" and "setting down or picking up passengers", each as a separate activity. "Loading and unloading" or "setting down or picking up passengers" are clearly different from parking or waiting.
(B) Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in a similar case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’. (EXHIBIT ?)
(C) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.
(D) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

(E) In any event, the signs make no offer to authorised visitors engaged in permitted loading/unloading for which no 'parking permit' was ever required (neither before the arrival of this Claimant onsite, nor after).
(F) I would also like to refer to case Bulstrode v Lambert (1953) which discusses the right to loading and unloading;

''After considering the facts at the time of the grant, Mr Justice Upjohn ruled that an ancillary right to stop, load and unload may be implied into the express grant of a right of way where such a right is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the right of way.''
4 If it can be proven that "parking" has occurred The Claimant did not comply with the IPC code of practice (Part B 15.1), regarding grace periods: “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.” 10 mins is generally accepted to be the minimum amount of time to read and understand a contract and make a decision to park or not to park.

5 . Signage.
The claimants signs do not mention anything regarding "loading" or "unloading" so it is impossible for any contract to be established. The claimants signs only mention "parking" and at no time was my vehicle "parked" otherwise than in accordance with.

6 . I contend that the Claimant has no authority to bring a claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

(A) The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was unloading, nor does he have any interest in the land. It, therefore lacks the capacity to take away my right to access property for the intention of unloading .

(B) The Claimant doesn't have a proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.

(C) Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of £160.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 2008.

7 . The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

(A) As the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the locations in question.

(B) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;

(C) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances as I was simply stopped for temporary loading/unloading and no loss or damage to the Claimant arose from this.

(D) The clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's current signs.

(E) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

(F) Furthermore, Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £100 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied). The Particulars of Claim include an extra £60 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as parking charges plus interest.
8 . The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

9 . As per Paragraphs 8-11 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, even though the Defendant disputed the claim, the Defendant invited the Claimant to enter some form of ADR to settle the dispute. The Claimant remained silent and ignored all approaches.

(A) Furthermore the claimants solicitors have also chosen to ignore any correspondence and began court proceedings without allowing the allocated time for a response. Following the initial parking charge notice and the reminder letter, the next letter I received was on the 25th March, a generic letter before claim from Gladstones . I replied on the 5th April, within their 14 day request, as seen in Exhibit (?). My response consisted of an email outlining my defense but again, no response was received.

10 . Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim

(A) I received County Court papers on the 7th April where within their particulars of claim it cited “parking charges”, as seen in Exhibit (?).
I am unsure what reasons Parking and Property Management LTD are using for taking the case to court as they have provided very limited particulars of claim (PoC). I had received letters, as seen in Exhibit(?) , which stated reasons for the charge as parking in no parking area’ but I have since appealed this reason in that I was stopped, not parked as seen in Exhibit(?).

(B) It is unknown if anything that I had previously stated within Exhibit(?) changed their reasons that made them find it deemable to raise this case to court as I did not receive a response and there is no detail offered of what “parking charges” entails within the PoC. The PoC does not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.1 and 1.4 which can be found in Exhibit(?) . This therefore means that the Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

13. Lack of detail within the Particulars of Claim “RoboClaim”

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, and unfair on unrepresented consumers. Parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support in accordance with CPR 1.1 2(a) “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”.

As an unrepresented consumer I am immediately at a disadvantage compared to trained solicitor in the matter and this is aggravated by Gladstones Solictors whom are not following CPR 16.4 1(a) as I have not received a detailed PoC to be able to properly formulate a concentrated argument.

(A) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
(B) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.