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
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 16th Jun 18, 3:13 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 2Thanks
    pokerish
    Gladstones Claim Form
    • #1
    • 16th Jun 18, 3:13 PM
    Gladstones Claim Form 16th Jun 18 at 3:13 PM
    Hi,

    I have received a claim form from Gladstones Solicitors regarding a parking incident in October 2017. I have read the NEWBIES thread and will now give the details of the incident, and my current defence letter (I used a sample letter in one of the threads).

    The details:
    - Parked in "own space" in residential block
    - Permit was half hidden by a tissue so was not fully visible
    - The signage and the tenancy agreement states that permit should be visible
    - A letter was sent to my home address with a parking fine
    - I appealed this in October 2017 stating I have a valid permit, but this was rejected
    - I told them I was the driver of the vehicle
    - I have received a Claim form and have just completed the AOS

    My letter:
    DEFENCE

    Background
    1. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    2. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    3. It is accepted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    4. 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 or the user of the vehicle.

    5. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s 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.

    6. Accordingly it is denied that:
    6.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant; and
    6.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    7. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis(2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    7.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    7.2. 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. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEyedistinguished.

    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 Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    10. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

    My concerns:
    Will I have to pay the full amount stated on the letter if this appeal fails?
    The amount they are claiming is the following
    166.46 amount claimed
    25 court fee
    50 legal representative.

    Thanks
Page 2
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 18th Dec 18, 11:00 AM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    What does 6) have to do with this case? Were you promised something? If not, then promissory estoppel would not apply

    Why have you not mentioned that the permit WAS in the windscreen? given part of your defence relies upon it!

    You havent reference where in your tenancy your absolute right to park was given. You havent shown us, either, as a lot of people randomly copy and paste stuff like this. You dont just attach the agreement, you refer to a specific clause in the agreement and, if necessary, reproduce it in the WS.

    Why have you left this 2 weeks?

    What does parking eye have to do with this? Are they using Gladstones to file claims now? Who are the PPC, becauwse im betting a tenner it is NOT Parking Eye?
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 2nd Jan 19, 10:23 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hi,

    Please let me know if the below is okay now. I will find out who the PPC is when I get home from work this evening. The below clause is the only clause in my tenancy agreement relating to the parking permit. I do not think it is very helpful but it is the only clause the agreement has.

    In the County Court at XXXXX
    Claim No. XXXXXXXX
    Between
    xxx (Claimant)
    and
    xxx (Defendant)

    -------------------------
    Witness Statement
    -------------------------

    1. I am xxx, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

    2. I was a resident of XXXXX [Address], and attach evidence of tenancy agreement as Exhibit A.

    3. On [DATE] I parked my vehicle registration no, XXXXX in the car park.

    4. My tenancy agreement granted me a parking permit and my own parking space. Evidence of this is contained in my parking permit in clause 13. Special Conditions:
    “The Tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space which belongs to the property to avoid being issued with a parking ticket. Any parking tickets received by the Tenant as a result of not displaying the permits will be the Tenants responsibility to pay.”
    This is dated XXXXX and a picture of it is attached as Exhibit B.

    5. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

    6. My parking ticket was in the windscreen at the time.

    7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Signature
    Date
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 13th Jan 19, 6:16 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hello

    I have received Gladstones witness statement and it is quite a big bundle which includes photos of my car on that day. I am quite worried about whether my witness statement and defence overall is strong enough, 17 days until the court case.

    Please could someone help me

    thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jan 19, 7:16 PM
    • 13,708 Posts
    • 14,991 Thanks
    KeithP
    Have you not filed your Witness Statement yet?

    On 2nd December you told us:
    I must submit it by 1st January.
    Looks like Coupon-mad was right when she said last July:
    You worry me, if you forgot this stage how the heck are you going to keep up at DQ stage, then Witness Statement and evidence stage?

    Back to your WS:
    I would be inclined to leave out that quote from your tenancy agreement. It does you no favours.

    Trouble is, it leaves your WS rather thin.

    No mention of signs?
    .
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 13th Jan 19, 7:19 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hi,

    Sorry I misunderstood. The court case is 30th January so I must submit it by tomorrow essentially.

    I haven't mentioned signs because I'm not sure how it would help me.

    I am not sure what other points I can include.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 19, 1:01 AM
    • 68,684 Posts
    • 80,943 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You MUST mention that the signs are sparse and incapable of forming a contract and enclose evidence with your WS (photos, not close ups).

    I am not clear why your very short WS quotes this which seems to be affirming the PCNs, and you haven't explained why you feel it's important:

    “The Tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space which belongs to the property to avoid being issued with a parking ticket. Any parking tickets received by the Tenant as a result of not displaying the permits will be the Tenants responsibility to pay.”
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 15th Jan 19, 11:17 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hi,

    I submitted this yesterday unfortunately.

    This is what I submitted:

    In the County Court at
    Claim No.
    Between
    Parking and Property Management Limited (Claimant)
    and
    (Defendant)
    -------------------------
    Witness Statement
    -------------------------
    1. I am xxx, the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
    2. I was a resident of xxx, and attach evidence of my tenancy agreement as Exhibit A.
    3. On 14th October 2017 I parked my vehicle with registration number xxx in the car park.
    4. My tenancy agreement granted me a parking permit and my own parking space. Evidence of this is contained in Clause 13 which states
    “The Tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space which belongs to the property to avoid being issued with a parking ticket.”
    This gives absolutely authority to myself to park in the allocated bay given that I have used the parking permit.
    5. The parking permit is dated August 2017 and a picture of it is attached as Exhibit B.
    6. My parking permit was in the windscreen at the time. It is noted that a tissue had accidentally been placed in the windscreen on top of the parking ticket. However it could still be seen that this was a relevant parking permit. A picture of this is attached as Exhibit C.
    7. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.
    8. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional cost and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described £50 as legal representative’s costs. These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
    9. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
    Signature
    Date


    I was unable to take photos of the signs as the property is actually in Coventry whereas I am in London. Should I still include this point in my skeleton argument? I am not planning to submit a skeleton argument, but have one for reference on the court date.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th Jan 19, 1:39 PM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Youve had since June to get photos.
    I am sure someone would have found them.

    You cannot ambush the claimant
    Your skeleton is a summary of the arguments that best support your, probolems with their claim, both the legal arguments and the witness statements, in a couple pages at most.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 19, 1:47 PM
    • 68,684 Posts
    • 80,943 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK so you will have to just challenge their evidence at the hearing, then.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 27th Jan 19, 5:12 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hi all,

    My court case is on 30th, very nervous! thank you all for your help so far.

    I was wondering if someone could have a quick read of the points I'd like to make on the day. I am going to submit a costs schedule tomorrow as well. Would it be okay to email this to the court?

    My points are below:

    I would like to start by summarising my case. I parked in my own designated parking spot in an underground car park. This car park is fob controlled, and this can even be seen in a photograph on page 43 of the claimants bundle. My parking permit was on the dashboard, but a tissue was accidentally placed on top of it, covering part of the permit. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual residents. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold. Therefore I have no reason to park there unlawfully. I was instructed by my letting agency not to use the glue on the parking permit, therefore I was only able to place it on the dashboard. The parking permit was always visible and the parking permit didn’t see it, or even chose not to see it.

    Defendants Argument

    1. Primacy of contract
    1.1. As seen in the defendants bundle in point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle, my landlord has the “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
    1.2. In my tenancy agreement, the only reference is “the tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space … to avoid being issued with a parking ticket.”
    1.3. I upheld my tenancy agreement by using a parking permit. This can be seen in Exhibit A in the witness statement.
    1.4. I have not directly signed a contract with the parking company, and my tenancy agreement does not mention them by name either.

    2. Operator signs cannot override existing rights. Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted. HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, and Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd. **not sure of this point too

    Rebutting Claimant Evidence and Arguments

    3. Re point #15 in the Claimant’s bundle
    3.1. I would like to state that part VI is not my lease, as the claimant incorrectly states, as I was merely a tenant. This is my landlord’s lease.
    3.2. The paragraph that the claimant is relying on includes a subjective statement where they regard “good estate management” as “enforcing a parking scheme”.
    3.3. If this was good estate management, then this parking scheme should be to deter non-residents, or residents without a permit parking in bays. However the claimant has done is contribute to poor estate management by causing undue distress to myself who has the right to park in my allocated space.
    3.4. Therefore this point is redundant.

    4. Re point #16 in the Claimant’s bundle
    4.1. The Claimant relies on Link v Blaney (May 2017) where the Claimant states any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore “any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.
    4.2. The above does not apply to me because in the Link V Blaney case the DJ Pratt ruled that the Head Lease did contain the right to vary the parking regime at the location because the tenancy agreement in that case had the following wording:
    "landlord is entitled from time to time may introduce regulations with regards to the proper management of the location".
    4.3. Furthermore, in that case there was a leasehold title - in my case there is not, and I rented my property from the freeholder through a letting agency. The only relevant document in this case is my tenancy.
    4.4. My tenancy agreement does not state anything similar to the above and contains no clause permitting any person or body to introduce or subject me to new terms and conditions from time to time or that my tenancy agreement can be varied. My tenancy agreement is listed as exhibit X in my witness statement bundle.
    4.5. In Pace v Mr N (2016) it was found that it is not enough to point to a clause in the lease, and it must be proved that the lease was varied and furthermore, varied by the lessor. The operator is not a party to the lease and therefore cannot vary it.

    5. Re point #8, #11 and #12 in the Claimant’s bundle
    5.1. The claimant refers to the Parking Eye V Beavis (2015) case in which they try to justify that 100.00 was not ‘excessive’ however the charges you are seeking are 160.00 per ticket.
    5.2. The claimant has not been able to justify how the sum of £60 is “reasonable” as stated in point #12.
    5.3. Point #8 also states that the charge is in the “Company’s legitimate interest”.
    5.4. The claimant’s legitimate interest is to restrict parking to “bay corresponding permit holders only at all times in the allocated bays” as can be seen in page 5 of the claimant’s bundle
    5.5. One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used.
    5.6. In my case, it is in the claimant’s legitimate interest to charge those parking without a permit as a deterrent from parking in the car park in Regent’s Court.
    5.7. I was a resident with a parking permit, and have proved this by providing my tenancy agreement and a permit. Therefore issuing me with a parking charge is NOT in their legitimate interest. Because there is no legitimate interest, this is deemed a penalty.
    5.8. Quite clearly the claimant is abusing their power as an agent of the landowner to try and penalise me for parking in my own space.
    5.9. Pursuant to my tenancy, I have the right to peaceful enjoyment under common law - this means that I am entitled to enjoy the full benefit of the property free of interference. It protects me against interference by either landlord or persons claiming to be under the landlord, this includes but is not limited to: agents, licensees, employees; tenants or successors. If there is breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant I am entitled to an injunction to restrain the interference and/or seek damages for losses caused by such interference.
    5.10. Futhermore, in Jopson v Homeguard (2016) it was found that Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) does not apply to residential parking. The Supreme Court found it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be difficult to establish commercial justification for charging residents to park in their own parking space.

    6. Re part VI in the Claimant’s bundle
    6.1. The Claimant has included a land registry between Jo Gibbons (my landlord) and Wilson Bowden Developments Limited.
    6.2. Point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle states “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
    6.3. Therefore __ I am stuck on which point I can make

    7. Re point #7 in the Claimant’s bundle.
    7.1. The claimant relies on the fact that the signage is the contractual document.
    7.2. The signs are unclear, and the photographs in the bundle prove this. The photographs are taken from a closer position than from a vehicle, and even then the small print about the fine is difficult to read.
    7.3. I dispute the witness’s judgement that the signs, or more specifically the terms and conditions, were highly prominent. In general, prominence can be a subjective affair in which colours, fonts, height, size and ambient light all play a significant role in determining if ‘something’ is prominent.
    7.4. A significant proportion of core terms are exceptionally small especially when attempting to read from a moving vehicle (as shown in Claimant’s bundle).
    7.5. The overall depiction of a sign being ‘prominent’ is significantly reduced by using a font of small size which makes core terms illegible from a vehicle. Conflicting signage also causes misperception.

    8. Re LBC in the Claimant’s bundle
    8.1. The LBC is lacking basic required information as well as no explanation regarding the additional £60 or any evidence to support their claim.



    Please could you let me know if i should remove some points. as you can see I am mainly challenging their evidence. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Should I also upload Gladstone's witness statement if that makes it easier?
    Last edited by pokerish; 27-01-2019 at 5:16 PM.
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 27th Jan 19, 5:16 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    This is my costs schedule:

    DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS


    Ordinary Costs

    Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 30/01/2019 £114.23

    Return mileage (8 miles return) from home address to Court £1.80

    Parking near Court (estimate) £5.00

    Sub-total £121.03 ======


    Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

    Research, preparation and drafting of documents (6 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £114.00

    Postage: £4.22

    Sub-total £118.22 ======



    £ 239.25 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Jan 19, 2:18 AM
    • 68,684 Posts
    • 80,943 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good!

    Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 30/01/2019 £114.23
    That will be capped at £95 but take proof of earnings/wage slip and try!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Jan 19, 8:37 AM
    • 10,936 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    beamerguy
    This is my costs schedule:

    DEFENDANT'S SCHEDULE OF COSTS


    Ordinary Costs

    Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 30/01/2019 £114.23

    Return mileage (8 miles return) from home address to Court £1.80

    Parking near Court (estimate) £5.00

    Sub-total £121.03 ======


    Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

    Research, preparation and drafting of documents (6 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £114.00

    Postage: £4.22

    Sub-total £118.22 ======



    £ 239.25 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED
    Originally posted by pokerish
    Now, that is a genuine claim even though it may be capped.

    Unlike the fake add-ons from Gladstones that should also be capped.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 28th Jan 19, 9:50 AM
    • 12,438 Posts
    • 12,578 Thanks
    The Deep
    As seen in the defendants bundle in point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle,

    113 pages, for a parking ticket, in one's own space, I do not believe it.

    If I were you, I would add a couple more hours to read all that waffle.

    The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

    Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

    All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
    Last edited by The Deep; 28-01-2019 at 9:57 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Jan 19, 3:32 PM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Point 6 in your skeleton - havent you already made this point, in point 1?
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 28th Jan 19, 11:19 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Thank you all for your replies.

    Yes nnosferatu1001 you are right i have, please see below for my updated arguments.

    I am the defendant in this case.
    I would like to start by summarising my case. I parked in my own designated parking spot in an underground car park. This car park is fob controlled, and this can even be seen in a photograph on page 43 of the claimants bundle. My parking permit was on the dashboard, but a tissue was accidentally placed on top of it, covering part of the permit. This can be seen in page 82 of the claimant’s bundle. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual residents. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    Defendants Argument
    1. Primacy of contract
    1.1. As seen in the claimants bundle in point 7 on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle, my landlord has the “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
    1.2. In my tenancy agreement, the only reference is “the tenants must use the parking permit supplied when parking in the allocated parking space … to avoid being issued with a parking ticket.” In the final page under special conditions.
    1.3. I upheld my tenancy agreement by using a parking permit. This can be seen in Exhibit A in the witness statement.
    1.4. I have not directly signed a contract with the parking company, and my tenancy agreement does not mention them by name either.
    1.5. Therefore my tenancy agreement overrides any suggested contract with the parking company.

    2. Operator signs cannot override existing rights
    2.1. The claimant refused my appeal where I demonstrated I have a parking permit as per my tenancy agreement and existing rights. The claimants response can be seen on page 78 of the claimant’s bundle.
    2.2. The claimant states that “The fact you are a permit holder is not in dispute”, therefore the claimant accepts I have a permit, and permission to park in the allocated bay.
    2.3. However the claimant then states that “as per the signage, retrospective evidence of authority to park is not accepted”.
    2.4. Signage on the property cannot replace the contract formed by the Lease, as found in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled:
    “ the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”
    2.5. Therefore parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted, and the signage cannot override my existing rights.

    Rebutting Claimant Evidence and Arguments
    I will now refute the main points the claimant relies on.

    3. Re point # in the claimants bundle.
    3.1. On page 5 of the claimant’s bundle, the claimant is authorised by the property managing agent to restrict the parking to “Bay corresponding permit holders”.
    3.2. I adhered to this restricted, and proved to the claimant that this was adhered to. Therefore as per the claimant’s contract with the property management service, should have stopped pursuing this claim.
    3.3. I am not obliged to display the permit, and the claimant is not able to enforce this.
    3.4. This proves my earlier point of the predatory nature of the claimant where they will not stop at anything to attempt to punish residents who have permission to park.

    4. Re point #8, #11 and #12 in the Claimant’s bundle
    4.1. The claimant refers to the Parking Eye V Beavis (2015) case in which they try to justify that 100.00 was not ‘excessive’ however the charges you are seeking are 160.00 per ticket.
    4.2. The claimant has not been able to justify how the sum of £60 is “reasonable” as stated in point #12.
    4.3. Point #8 also states that the charge is in the “Company’s legitimate interest”.
    4.4. The claimant’s legitimate interest is to restrict parking to “bay corresponding permit holders only at all times in the allocated bays” as can be seen in page 5 of the claimant’s bundle
    4.5. One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used.
    4.6. In my case, it is in the claimant’s legitimate interest to charge those parking without a permit as a deterrent from parking in the car park in Regent’s Court.
    4.7. I was a resident with a parking permit, and have proved this by providing my tenancy agreement and a permit. Therefore issuing me with a parking charge is NOT in their legitimate interest. Because there is no legitimate interest, this is deemed a penalty.
    4.8. This case is distinguished from that of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in that the alleged offense took place in a residential underground car park with fob controlled entrance with allocated marked bays for each flat where as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis was in on a retail park owned by British Airways Pension Fund. Additionally, unlike this alleged offense Beavis was in a time constrained environment.
    4.9. Furthermore, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore mean that the issued Parking Charge Notice is either an unenforceable penalty (which a private company is unable to issue) or a speculative invoice.
    4.10. One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying - this is not applicable to this case. As the defendant was parking in their allocated space it is then considered that there is no legitimate interest, the charge would therefore be as previously mentioned, an unenforceable penalty or speculative invoice.
    4.11. Quite clearly the claimant is abusing their power as an agent of the landowner to try and penalise me for parking in my own space

    5. Re point #7 in the Claimant’s bundle.
    5.1. The claimant relies on the point that the signage is the contractual document.
    5.2. The signs are unclear, and the photographs in the bundle prove this. The photographs are taken up close, and even then the small print about the fine is difficult to read.
    5.3. On page 81 a picture of my car can be seen. Behind, left and right of the car, there is no sign visible.
    5.4. I dispute the witness’s judgement that the signs, or more specifically the terms and conditions, were highly prominent. In general, prominence can be a subjective affair in which colours, fonts, height, size and ambient light all play a significant role in determining if ‘something’ is prominent.
    5.5. The overall depiction of a sign being ‘prominent’ is significantly reduced by using a font of small size which makes core terms illegible from a vehicle.
    5.6. Therefore I did not enter a contract with the parking agency.

    6. Re point #16 in the Claimant’s bundle
    6.1. The Claimant relies on Link v Blaney (May 2017) where the Claimant states any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore “any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.
    6.2. The Claimant has included a land registry between ___ (my landlord) and ___ Developments Limited.
    6.3. In point 16# the claimant exclaims that the landlord could not have given a right that was not hers to give.
    6.4. Yet point 7 of my landlords lease on page 113 of the claimant’s bundle states that she has “the exclusive right to park one private vehicle”.
    6.5. This is enough to state that the landlord did have the right and passed this to me, contrary to what the claimant has stated.

    7. Re point #15 in the Claimant’s bundle
    7.1. I would like to state that part VI is not my lease, as the claimant incorrectly states, as I was a tenant. This is my landlord’s lease.
    7.2. On page 111 of the claimant’s bundle, clause 8 states that no third party shall have any rights to enforce any term in the lease. Therefore the claimant is unable to use this point.
    7.3. The paragraph that the claimant is relying on includes a subjective statement where they regard “good estate management” as “enforcing a parking scheme”.
    7.4. If this was good estate management, then this parking scheme should be to deter non-residents, or residents without a permit parking in bays. However the claimant has contributed to poor estate management by causing undue distress to myself who has the right to park in my allocated space.


    Thanks again
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Jan 19, 3:41 PM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I find the permit bit confusing

    Do the signs require the permit to be displayed? If so, then the tissue obscuring the permit potentially breaches this.
    However "use the permit" is an ambiguous TA term - what is meant by "use"? Possess? Keep in teh vehicle for inspection if someone asks? Have in prominent display? So I dont know how this will go. Can you udnerstand the issue I have - you say you complied, yet state the tissue was in the way.

    If you do go with you complied with TA - and I would! - then I would state you complied with your TA, and this is the only contract you need to comply with to have a right to park. You have no need to enter ANOTHER contrac t- the PPC has nothing to offer you, as they cannot offer you parking as you already have it, and they cannot modify the parking contract - your TA - as they are not a party to it, and they cannot enforce any terms in any case.

    2) Is surely just the first argument over primacy again?? Certaiinly 2.1 -> 2.3 dont actually do anythign other than prove you have a permit, and that they are stating on the signs that retrospective authority isnt acceptbale - but that doesnt matter, as the signs dont matter.

    2.4 and 2.5 surely apply to 1?

    Not a fan of 4. Its a jumble, and mostly boils back to the vehicle was authorised by virtue of you being a tenant, and display of a permit is merely a convenience to the operator, without conceding that is is necessary to do so. Half of it is a rant, not an argument. Unless youre making a counterclaim for distress etc i wouldnt include. Its a distraction.

    You could make it stronger, but you need to point out how there can
    1) be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.
    2) The landholder is the LANDLORD, not the MA who signed the contract,a dn the MA has no legitimate commercial interest at all
    3) The claimants reason to patrol spaces is to erstrict... and by the claimants own admission, the defendant is such a person.
    4) the amount is therefore, according to Beavis, a penalty and cannot be recovered.

    5) Even if the court finds the claimant CAN impose an additional contract to provide the consideration the Defendant also has, I dispute that the signage as presented on site can ever impose an enforceable contract...

    6) I do not follow how you have gone from 6.1, which talks about the right to introduce regulations - does the Lease include that? If NOT, tehn you need to state the landlords lease does NOT give this right, and the claimant KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS, as part of their diligence as they know the site had leaseholders.
    You then go on ot state that the landlord has the exclusive right to park, and that was ceded to you for the duration fo the tenancy as shown in ... of the TA.

    7) Is badly written
    It sounds like there IS something in the lease around introducint new regulations; if so you MUST explain this more clearly as an argumetn
    For example, you can point out that "good estate management" CANNOT alter existing parking arrangements, because the lease transfers rights to the parking bay to the landlord - that is the meaning of "exclusive"; so this vague term CANNOT imply the alteration of rights to park, as it would be a breach of the lease to do so.
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 29th Jan 19, 10:09 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    nosferatu1001 thank you so much you have helped me so so much

    I hav a few queries below:

    1. what do you mean by the bold bit:
    2.2. There would be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.

    2. In 4.2. they have quoted the wrong reference or quote from the lease, and have misquoted the quote to better suit their purpose.
    The clause was
    “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Residential Section and the Residential Common Parts and which are for the general benefit of all or substantially all the occupiers of the Residential Section and which are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

    They have said it is “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Car Park and are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

    Is this worth picking up on?

    Thanks again!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Jan 19, 1:45 AM
    • 68,684 Posts
    • 80,943 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In 4.2. they have quoted the wrong reference or quote from the lease, and have misquoted the quote to better suit their purpose.

    The clause was
    “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Residential Section and the Residential Common Parts and which are for the general benefit of all or substantially all the occupiers of the Residential Section and which are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

    They have said it is “the provision of other works services or facilities which the Landlord from time to time reasonably considers appropriate for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or modernising the services or facilities in or for the Car Park and are in the keeping of principles of good estate management”.

    Is this worth picking up on?
    Originally posted by pokerish
    OMG yes.

    They are trying to mislead the Defendant and misdirect the Court, and you should argue that this is an abuse of process and wholly unreasonable conduct, especially given the WS comes from a cut & paste template provided by a firm of solicitors (Gladstones) who deal with parking robo-claims every day, and whose first duty is always to the court.

    1. what do you mean by the bold bit:
    2.2. There would be no legitimate commercial reason for the LANDHOLDER to penalise a tenant, as they may park there without moving it for their entire tenancy, if they wished.
    The resident has 'exclusive use' of the parking space, under the lease, don't they?

    So, the resident has an unfettered licence, an 'express right' to park there for months, as long as the car was taxed & roadworthy & not a dumped wreck that would breach the agreement.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • pokerish
    • By pokerish 30th Jan 19, 11:56 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    pokerish
    Hello,

    Thank you so much coupon-mad

    I am waiting at the court now, and believe the other party - parking and propert management - hasn’t showed up.

    When I go in, do I just claim costs then?

    Thanks
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

29Posts Today

3,068Users online

Martin's Twitter