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
    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 11:30 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 0Thanks
    ShazEll
    County Court Claim Defence letter UKPC
    • #1
    • 13th Apr 18, 11:30 AM
    County Court Claim Defence letter UKPC 13th Apr 18 at 11:30 AM
    Hi, I really need some help as i'm very new to anything like this. I've spent days searching through MSE forum threads, researching about putting together a defence letter for a county court claim against me for unpaid parking tickets from UKPC, for parking in our OWN residents parking bay whilst VISIBLY showing a visitors parking permit. I've seen loads of help from experts for others which I too which would be hugely grateful for.
    Before I send my letter for you to check, to give you the backstory...

    This is going back to Aug 2016 - I live at the address (tenants) of which I received the PCN's (I think 5 in total) we have communal parking with allocated bays. Me and my partner have 2 vehicles and we have 2 permits, one that stays in the windscreen of the main vehicle and the other is a visitors permit. We have one allocated parking bay for our flat and our neighbour who didn't own a vehicle allowed us to park our other vehicle in their bay - just to add the parking permits do NOT specify flat numbers. We did this for a number of months with no problems at all.
    All of a sudden we started receiving PCN on the windscreen for “parking in a designated ‘Resident Permit Holder Parking Space’ without clearly displaying a valid permit”- I was shocked and sure they had made a mistake as you could clearly see the permit on the dashboard so I proceeded to use their appeal system to contest the PCN and explained that you could even see the permit in the pics the warden had taken as 'evidence' . I think I contested 2 in total and was advised that the charge would be put on hold and they will respond within 35 days. I continued to receive PCN then my neighbour moved out so naturally I stopped parking there as new tenants moved in.
    Anyway I heard nothing more for months and months - no reply from my appeal so assumed it had all been dropped.
    Then I suddenly started to be bombarded with 'debt collector' letters going back and forth between Zenith and DRP demanding payment. At this stage I read up on it and realised that they're just scaremongering and the advise was to ignore, and so I did. Again after the initial bombardment suddenly quiet and nothing again for several months. To which point without any warning received a Court Court Claim letter which I remember reading to never ignore, so then that brings me to this point.
    I have done the acknowledgement on MCOL and left the defence blank and have put together a letter myself, using what I've researched on MSE but literally no idea what i'm doing so was wondering if someone could check it over and make sure it 's relevant and I've not missed anything.

    Thanks in advance
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Apr 18, 11:38 AM
    • 9,023 Posts
    • 8,691 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 13th Apr 18, 11:38 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Apr 18, 11:38 AM
    We have one allocated parking bay for our flat and our neighbour who didn't own a vehicle allowed us to park our other vehicle in their bay

    Absolutely fine AFAIAA, they are obviously trying to scam you. Read what they tried recently.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    Also read this about residential parking

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

    https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/residential-parking/

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213801109-Parking-Control-Management-Roboclaim-Residential-site

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/sections/115000492465-Residential-parking-problems

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 11:54 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    • #3
    • 13th Apr 18, 11:54 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Apr 18, 11:54 AM
    UKPC have been using SCS Law to proceed with this case and i'm just still in shock that they are taking it this far with absolutely no substance to their claim.

    Assuming that is the reason - I don't see why it would have been a problem as surely its down to the residents what they do with their bays. Plus I don't know how UKPC would have even known it was our neighbours space as the permits aren't flat specific so as far as they would have been concerned it was just a vehicle parked in a bay with a valid permit clearly displayed.

    There is nothing at all on any of their signage about rules or parking in anyone else's space anyway, all it states is you must park with a valid permit clearly displayed and park within marked bays
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Apr 18, 2:58 PM
    • 9,023 Posts
    • 8,691 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 13th Apr 18, 2:58 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Apr 18, 2:58 PM
    In most residential car parks, residents do not need permits at all, especially from scammers. Their lease/AST is all the authority they need.

    In nearly every case that gets to court, the scammer loses.

    In your case, if your parking space is in your deeds, they are not only disturbing your quiet enjoyment on your property, but they are committing a trespass, and operating a business on your land.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 4:37 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    • #5
    • 13th Apr 18, 4:37 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Apr 18, 4:37 PM
    I was reading other posts about that and so checked my tenancy agreement as I rent the property
    and it doesn't say anything about parking... it doesn't say anything about having to display a permit either.

    UKPC don't actually even do parking control here anymore, a new company took over a few months ago, unless they've just changed their name.

    Will I still be able to use that as a defence if it doesn't mention having to show a permit in my agreement or will I not be able to because my agreement doesn't mention parking?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Apr 18, 6:12 PM
    • 9,023 Posts
    • 8,691 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 13th Apr 18, 6:12 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Apr 18, 6:12 PM
    Most own space cases ae won as the lease/AST has primacy of contract over the scammers' T&Cs.

    Ask your landlord for sight of his/her lease and reqd some of these

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=primacy+of+contract+private+parking&form= EDGEAR&qs=SC&cvid=2637e9e81aff4a11a22b6c6d01685b3a &cc=GB&setlang=en-GB&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLON1YqbJUKLXCfdxkTaBx L2mbZDPvxHC*6rFSbQCgA6U8G8SWj4l%21X1W1jC%21Ypbhk5s yKKg6Wf1EGNOWSTNQ7ORJ&PC=ACTS
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-04-2018 at 6:15 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 6:17 PM
    • 2,226 Posts
    • 2,637 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #7
    • 13th Apr 18, 6:17 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Apr 18, 6:17 PM
    Have a look through, don't just look for parking. Control over communal areas, right to quiet enjoyment, rights of third parties, etc.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 13th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    • 10,400 Posts
    • 9,646 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #8
    • 13th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    Have a look through, don't just look for parking. Control over communal areas, right to quiet enjoyment, rights of third parties, etc.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    OP is tenant, not leaseholder(from post#1) so won't have immediate access to this. Get copy of lease from leaseholder.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 8:37 PM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,768 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 13th Apr 18, 8:37 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Apr 18, 8:37 PM
    UKPC have been using SCS Law to proceed with this case and i'm just still in shock that they are taking it this far
    We're not.

    Read the NEWBIES thread and search UKPC SCS claim or residential defence 75% consensus to find recent ones written. The one by kgirl123 is pretty similar, different parking firm but that's the sort of thread to read (no links given, searching the forum is key to your research).

    We assume you've already done the AOS online like the NEWBIES FAQS sticky shows you how?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 8:42 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    I'm not sure i'll be able to get it in time I completed the Acknowledgement on MCOL last Saturday (8th) and my landlord is away at the mo.

    Despite the fact I probably had a right to park there with or without a permit, the fact is I actually had a permit on display and have photographic evidence to prove it. You could also see the permit in the UKPC 'evidence' pics that the warden took so I'm still not even entirely sure why I received the tickets in the first place?!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 9:12 PM
    • 6,601 Posts
    • 5,774 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the date of issue on your court claim form?
    Assuming you completed tha Acknowledgement of Service in time, you have thirty-three days from the date of issue of your claim form to file a Defence.
    .
    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 9:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    The date of issue is the 6th April.
    Oh right, that's great I thought I had 14 days
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 9:48 PM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,768 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You did but if you have done the AOS you will/should have seen it extends the time.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 13th Apr 18, 10:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    I see, that's good to know.

    I've put my defence together already but will get in touch with my landlord re the lease specifics before I send it
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 18, 1:36 AM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,768 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please show us the draft defence, which is how we win these cases (many minds together).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • redrabbit17
    • By redrabbit17 16th Apr 18, 7:52 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    redrabbit17
    My case is near identical to this, including the dates. Not sure if I should create a new post or just add to here? In the process of drafting a defence tonight.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 16th Apr 18, 8:22 PM
    • 35,108 Posts
    • 19,191 Thanks
    Quentin
    No don't post here.

    Read the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum and if you have any questions start your own thread
    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 16th Apr 18, 8:36 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    Hi again, so I checked with my landlord and the lease confirms he owns the parking space. Only problem is he's away for 6 weeks so wont be able to get evidence of this until after then. Hopefully I wont need it before then.

    Here is the defence I've drafted... I'll be really grateful to hear what you think.

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: XXXXXXX

    Between:

    Uk Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


    Preliminary

    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


    Background

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

    4. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    5. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charges were incurred for !!!8220;parking in a designated !!!8216;Resident Permit Holder Parking Space!!!8217; without clearly displaying a valid permit!!!8221; which is wholly denied by the Defendant as a valid visitors permit was clearly visible on display - photographic evidence of this is available in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    6. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    7. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charges in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    8. 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.

    9. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that 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 the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    10. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    11. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that 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.

    11. Accordingly it is denied that:
    11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    13. How can there be a !!!8216;legitimate interest!!!8217; in penalising residents for using parking spaces, 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 contrary to the requirement of good faith and !!!8216;out of all proportion to any legitimate interest!!!8217; to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.
    13.1. 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.

    14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    15. 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.

    16. 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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 11:00 PM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,768 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    so I checked with my landlord and the lease confirms he owns the parking space. Only problem is he's away for 6 weeks so wont be able to get evidence of this until after then. Hopefully I wont need it before then.
    You will not need it until a few weeks down the line, to file evidence with your witness statement.

    I would also suggest (no rush, not this week!) you get a signed and dated written/typed WS from the landlord who owns the space, saying that he passed his rights to his tenant (you) including his unfettered right to park in his space. His tenant and their visitors enjoy a demised right for exclusive use of the bay, and to remove that right is a derogation from grant. And he has never authorised nor contracted with this (or any) parking firm to give such a notorious company of ex-clampers any lawful excuse to penalise and harass and demand money from his tenants, causing a serious nuisance and encroaching on your right to peaceful enjoyment of your (his) property including his owned space.

    Anyway for now all you need is a defence, no evidence goes in yet.
    Here's a recent one with more to it, including the Landlord & Tenant Act requirement for a 75% consensus of residents to agree, before a significant change to leases can be made:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74118000#post74118000

    I like that one because it also has the case quoted with the Judge saying that to expect people to (suddenly, after never doing so) display a permit at their own home, is like asking them to fly a Union Jack whenever they are at home. Unreasonable, a nuisance and worse.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-04-2018 at 11:03 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ShazEll
    • By ShazEll 17th Apr 18, 8:52 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ShazEll
    Brilliant! I've made amendments accordingly...

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: XXXXXX

    Between:

    Uk Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


    Preliminary

    1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background

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

    4) It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    5) The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charges were incurred for !!!8220;parking in a designated !!!8216;Resident Permit Holder Parking Space!!!8217; without clearly displaying a valid permit!!!8221; which is wholly denied by the Defendant as a valid visitors permit was clearly visible on display - photographic evidence of this is available in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    6) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    7) The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charges in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    8) 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.

    9) It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that 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 the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    10) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    11) The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot
    (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
    (ii) that 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.

    11. Accordingly it is denied that:
    11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    12) The Defendant parked legitimately in the bay allocated to the private rental property of which the Defendant resides, clearly displaying the valid visitor permit, without penalty or charge for many years. After all these years, the Defendant had the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the visitors permit in the aforementioned parking bay.

    12.1 The Defendant avers that there has been no variation of the owner's lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Defendant understands that for such a variation to have been agreed by the residents, 75% of the parties must have consented and not more than 10% must not have objected to any proposed material change (which this most certainly is).

    12.2 Due process has not been followed and the Claimant is put to strict proof, including proving delivery of the requisite notices and the consensus obtained for the introduction of this unwelcome nuisance. Onerous terms cannot be foisted upon residents merely by a third party putting some signs up and beginning a predatory charging regime - even with the authority of a site agent - since this would be a derogation from grant.

    12.3 The Defendant will provide a witness statement from the landlord, confirming that the Defendant was authorised by the him/her to park on site, was legitimately and properly parked in their own bay and could not be described as ''unauthorised'' (i.e. a trespasser). In any case, a parking operator firm not in possession of the land, cannot recover such damages.

    12.4 In D7GF307F - UKCPM v Mr D - before Deputy District Judge Skelly on 1st February 2018 at Clerkenwell, a similar thin excuse of an argument from a private parking firm inflicting a nuisance on residents & visitors was dismissed. When not sitting as a Judge, DDJ Skelly is a barrister specialising in property law. The managing agents were named as a party to the lease, and there was a clause which said that they could make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees. However, this could not excuse a change as intrusive and onerous as to override the grant of free resident/visitor parking, effectively restricting and charging for a right previously enjoyed, without the required consensus and deed of variation. It would be like the agents suddenly stipulating that residents had to hang a Union Jack out of the window whenever they were at home; clearly unreasonable and not in the interests of the consumer.

    13) This Claimant has only in recent months, begun a predatory parking regime targeting residents and their visitors and has 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.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    14) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    15) How can there be a !!!8216;legitimate interest!!!8217; in penalising residents for using parking spaces, 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 contrary to the requirement of good faith and !!!8216;out of all proportion to any legitimate interest!!!8217; to fine residents or their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.

    15.1. 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.

    16) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    17) 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.

    18) 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
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

98Posts Today

1,872Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin