Hi all,

A brief history on the situation...

I have an outstanding claim against me as Registered Keeper for 3 PCN's for not displaying a permit. I'm a leaseholder and my Lease makes no mention of needing to display a permit. With the help of someone else I have already submitted a skeleton defence. I was also advised to contact the DVLA to ask whom and when my data had been accessed. It turns out the PPC have failed to contact the DVLA on one occasion, and have reused my data to raise a claim against me. I understand this is a breach of data protection act.
With the hearing in the next few weeks, I ask you guys to help my WS.

I have another thread 'Multiple PCNs' but didn't want the two to get confused. Additional info can be found there.

Here is my defence.

In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton
Case No: xxxxxxx

PRELMINARY MATTERS

The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:
“1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant”

On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstone’s 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 ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’

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 Claimant is known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.



DEFENCE STATEMENT

I am xxxxxxxxx, the defendant and Leaseholder in this matter. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

Section 1: The Claimant has no authority to claim
I deny that the Claimant has any authority over my property and I contend that the Claimant has no authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor do they have any interest in the land. Therefore, they lack the capacity to offer parking.

1.1 Schedules of the Lease cover The Premises, Mutual Covenants and Easements, Rights and Privileges between the parties. These contain the Terms and Conditions in regards to parking, none of which include a requirement for Leaseholders/Resident(s) to display a permit.

The vehicle was parked on property in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

1.2 Recent cases have set clear precedence that my Lease has primacy of contract over any signage that the Claimant puts up as per judgements in B9GF0A9E Jopson v Homeguard [2016], C6GF14F0 Pace vs. Mr N - [2016] and C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P [2016].

1.3 In B9GF0A9E Jopson v Homeguard [2016], the exact question regarding terms in a lease was tested at Oxford County Court on 29/9/2016. The Jopson case is a persuasive decision, where Senior Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.

1.4 Furthermore, in the case of C7GF51J1 Pace vs. Mr N [2016] District Judge Coonan ruled that any amendments to a leaseholder’s covenants regarding parking cannot be amended by a third party, they must be amended into the Lease by the landowner directly, in accordance with the terms set out within the Lease.

1.5 In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well-known and well established principle that ‘a grantor shall not derogate from his grant’.

1.6 The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1:
‘If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges’
There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

1.7 There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents for using parking spaces which they own, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces.

1.8 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.

Section 2: The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge

2.1 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. It has already been established that the ruling of ParkingEye vs. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is not applicable to cases involving residential parking spaces. This is supported by the cases referenced in section 1.2 above.

2.2 Furthermore, Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, makes it clear the keeper can only be liable for the amount on the original notice. The original noticed stated the charge was "£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days"

2.3 Furthermore I submit that the £50 legal representatives cost have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts as part of their roboclaim litigation model in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

2.4 The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver; furthermore they have provided no evidence.
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c) If the driver was considered to infringe on this land, then only the Landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this claimant. Such a matter would only be limited to the Landowner claiming a nominal sum, yet xxx is owned by me as the leaseholder. Any other space to allege to have been used has never been identified by this Claimant.
d) It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording under the POFA and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event.

Section 3: The Leasehold Agreement covering Terms relating to parking .I include my Lease which very clearly shows no terms relating to permit parking being in place, the Lease points out;

Quiet Enjoyment
That the Leaseholder paying the rents reserved by this Lease and performing and observing the covenants contained in this Lease may peaceably enjoy the Premises during the Term without any lawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it.

Mutual Covenants
3. Not to use the Car Parking Spaces or any part of the estate for the housing or parking of any vehicle other than a taxed and road worthy private motor vehicle.
16: No caravans, mobile homes, boats or trailers whatsoever and no commercial vehicle exceeding 3500kg shall be parked at any time on the Car Parking Spaces or any part of the Estate except temporary use of removal and delivery vans.
17: Not to permit any vehicle of any description belonging to the Leaseholder his family servants’ visitors or licensees to remain on any part of the Common Parts in such a manner as to obstruct the ready approach to any building or part of the estate.

To my knowledge, my car was parked within the Terms and Conditions set in my Lease. I was not obstructing anyone leaving or entering the Premises. My car is Taxed, MOT certified and Insured and certainly roadworthy and my vehicle is not commercial nor in excess of the weight limits stipulated in my deeds. Additionally, there is no reference that Residents or Visitors to these Premises require a permit to park and would be “fined”.

Easements, Rights and Privileges
1: The right for the Leaseholder and all persons authorised by the Leaseholder (in common with all the other persons entitled to like right) at all times to use the Common Parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Premises and the Visitors Parking Space (but not further or otherwise).
6: The right on a first come first served basis for bona fide visitors of the Leaseholder to park a private motor vehicle on the Visitors Parking Space for a period not exceeding 36 hours in any one time.

Citing the admissions above, I request the court use their case management powers to strike out this claim.

Thanks in advance.