Money claim, Small Claims.....can the defendant counterclaim for harassment?

[charitynjw]

Although a residential (AST) matter, a money claim* has been made by a contractor, not the landlord. (Ie claimant is a private parking company).
It would appear that the parking company are claiming in their own right; they are not an agent of the landlord in the principal/agent respect.
I believe there is sufficent evidence to prove that the parking company does not have the locus standi to initiate a claim (they do not have the appropriate landowner authority required by legislation).
CPR 26.7 states that harassment claims against the landlord are not suitable for SCT.
But is it ok to include, amongst other things, a harassment counterclaim against the contractor in SCT?
There is no problem evidencing a course of conduct.
Thanks

*Breach of contract.

[atticus]

Yes. This may mean that the claim is not allocated to the Small Claims Track.

[charitynjw]

Yes. This may mean that the claim is not allocated to the Small Claims Track.

Thanks, Atticus.

CPR 26 is a bit vague re SCT & persons who harass that are not landlords.

[R0b]

On the contrary I think the CPR is pretty clear that if you have a claim against a landlord for harassment or unlawful eviction, the claim will not be allocated to the SCT.

If the parking co. is not the landlord by ordinary meaning and understanding, I can't see how CPR 26.7 applies. The parking co. I assume is managing the car park not renting out spaces or anything like that so I can't see how they are the landlord especially if the landlord is not a named party to the claim.

If you start making references to landlord and tenant in any defence/counterclaim then I would agree that it's possible the court might throw it onto another track so you may have to be careful how you word it.

[charitynjw]

On the contrary I think the CPR is pretty clear that if you have a claim against a landlord for harassment or unlawful eviction, the claim will not be allocated to the SCT.

Agreed.

If the parking co. is not the landlord by ordinary meaning and understanding, I can't see how CPR 26.7 applies. The parking co. I assume is managing the car park not renting out spaces or anything like that so I can't see how they are the landlord especially if the landlord is not a named party to the claim.

Agreed

If you start making references to landlord and tenant in any defence/counterclaim then I would agree that it's possible the court might throw it onto another track so you may have to be careful how you word it.

Maybe. Didn't Ferguson start in Bromley SCT? (I think)

Hi R0b

[R0b]

Hi Charity, do you mean Ferguson v British Gas?

[charitynjw]

Hi Charity, do you mean Ferguson v British Gas?

That one, yes.

[R0b]

I believe so yes but if I recall that had nothing to do with tenant/landlord disputes just a customer/supplier dispute.

As long as you make it clear the parking co. is harassing the defendant and meets the harassment criteria, I don't see an issue for this being allocated to the SCT. I've had harassment claims allocated to that track so it is possible but ultimately the court decides and if allocated elsewhere, then the defendant will need to decide whether to make an application for re-allocation or proceed on the assigned track.

[charitynjw]

I believe so yes but if I recall that had nothing to do with tenant/landlord disputes just a customer/supplier dispute.

It wouldn't be a claim against the landlord.
The parking co. is a contractor, so not subject to agency law either.That is made clear in the landowner (landlord) agreement with the parking co.
The parking charge, if paid, goes straight into the parking co's pocket.
This was sorted in the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis precedent case.