UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

[charitynjw]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Another note, following up on my comment about NTKs.
This link below shows exactly the type of documents I received:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76335

Are these NTKs?

Yes.

[ostell]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

P 15 Schedule 5, part 10 Gives you the right to park in the allocated Space.

Page 33, (3) could be problem in that it suggests a permit must be displayed. Were permits issued BY THE LANDLORD? Did the signs in the car park (have you got a picture of them) appear after your lease started? The correct claimant for lack of permit is the landlord and not the parking company. There is also no provision within the lease, which has primacy, for a fee to be paid if no permit is displayed.

I'm confused with the addresses stated on your lease and the addresses on the tickets.

The parking on the roadway sign looks prohibiting, as already mentioned, and no contract could have been formed.

I would argue that there has been no loss when you are parked in your allocated space as your lease is superior.

This is small claims court. There can be no claim for costs.

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Page 33, (3) could be problem in that it suggests a permit must be displayed. Were permits issued BY THE LANDLORD?
The Permits were provided by a company called Pinnacle. Which I believe is hired be THE MANAGER - ' Belvedere Park Management Company Ltd' -

Did the signs in the car park (have you got a picture of them) appear after your lease started?
The signs did not appear until couple months later after my lease, and a letter was sent locally to warn people in the living area before it begins. ( The tickets were issued after the signs)
The picture of the sign is the same one attached in the previous post.


I'm confused with the addresses stated on your lease and the addresses on the tickets.
Yes, 3 of the PCNs in the drivers allocated space - the address stated on the ticket is incorrect.
( could this be a winning point? - that the driver car was parked in it's allocated space, but the ticket is stating a different location?)

This is small claims court. There can be no claim for costs.
'No Claim for costs' meaning?... they can not claim the whole amount of £1270 at all, or just some?

Many thanks
Peter

[charitynjw]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

The general rule in Small Claims is that, apart from the costs listed on the claim form, each side bears their own costs incurred in the proceedings.

[ostell]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Your right to park is given in your lease and another company cannot vary the lease without your consent, If you landlord did not issue permits then why should you be expected to display permits from another company? Your lease has primacy. Perhaps a read of this page will help somewhat

The signs are prohibiting, meaning there is no offer of parking, which is pointless anyway as you already have the right to park and do not need any further offers.

If they have the incorrect address then that is a good defence. You were not parked in that place at all.

Can I suggest that you join PePiPoo forums where there are many instances of similar cases and will help with a defence.

Basically they cannot offer you parking on space you already have the right to park and for parking elsewhere there is no offer of a parking contract and therefore no right to claim a contravention.

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

After receiving I ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLAIM - do I have 14 days or 28 days to reply back to the solicitor?

- - - Updated - - -

IN the CCA REQUEST to the CLAIMANT -

Q. In the template, on the subject heading says - 'Re:− Account Number xxxxx', Where can i find my account number?

[charitynjw]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

After receiving I ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLAIM - do I have 14 days or 28 days to reply back to the solicitor?

If the claim was issued via MCOL (Northampton CCBC), 5 days are allowed for deemed service.
You then have a further 14 days in which to either file acknowledgement or file a defence.........with the court.
If you just acknowledge (which is probably the better option in most cases) you then have a further 14 days in which to submit your defence.....to the court.

- - - Updated - - -

IN the CCA REQUEST to the CLAIMANT -

Q. In the template, on the subject heading says - 'Re:− Account Number xxxxx', Where can i find my account number?
CCA?
Where did that come from?

####

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

from this section on the website?;
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...y-of-Agreement

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

I'm trying to write my CPR letter , can you please tell me whether tis list of document request is right from my POC?

1. Proof of Terms and Condition
2. Proof of Car Locations mentioned.
3. Proof of Driver of Registered Vehicle
4. Proof of Signage
5. Formal Demand


Many thanks
Peter

[charitynjw]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

from this section on the website?;
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...y-of-Agreement

That would be for agreements/contracts regulated by the Consumer Credit Act.
Not applicable for parking disputes, though.

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Ah ok...I was just following instructions on the court claim section tab at the top.

So am I correcting in thinking I just focusing on preparing my defence?

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

So this is my first draft, i must admit i'm pretty incompetent at writing,
I wrote the first couple paragraphs and copied the rest, please let me know your thoughts on whether this is good?


***************

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No:

BETWEEN


UK Parking Control Ltd Claimant
-and-
NAME HERE Defendant

__________________________
DEFENCE
__________________________

1) This claim is being brought against the registered keeper of the vehicle, alleged by the Claimant, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC). The Claimant is bringing this claim on the basis that a driver of the vehicle has entered into a contract to pay that amount.


2) The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX, who is also a owner of lease hold flat of the residential area with a personal allocated space. Three of the PCNs (number XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX) issued by the Claimant, state the driver of the vehicle was parked in a designated area without displaying a permit.

3) There is no agreement within the Defendants’ Lease, that states the Leaseholder have to display a parking permit, pay for a ticket or pay penalties to a third party for non display. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by PPC signs unless I have agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which clearly I have not.

a). There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

b). In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

c). In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.


4) The location of the Defendants vehicle stated in the Particular of Claims- Contraventions (PCN numbers; XXX, XXX XXX) is not recognised, “Exmore House Car Parks, Norman Road Belvedere Kent DA17 6LD”.
The Defendant’s address is XXX, Moyle House, Something Road Name, Belvedere, DA17 6BF. The Defendants vehicle at the time was parked in their own personal allocated space in ‘Moyle House’. (See Lease for allocated space – Plot 175)

5) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

6) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

(a)The claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all therefore no contract exists. The claimant’s notices clearly state no unauthorised parking therefore there is no offer of a contract for those who are supposedly unauthorised and therefore no contract.

(b) 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 (MYSELF). Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on the very people whose interests the claimant was there to uphold. I have attached a copy of my lease for your interest. .

7) No contract could have been formed with a driver. The signage at the site is unclear and any term requiring payment of £100 or any additional amount is illegible, and also cannot be clearly seen from the driver seat. (see UKPC's own photos).


8) The sign in question is forbidding in nature and cannot form a contract in this case. As explained by Deputy District Judge Ellington in a recent case (B6QZ4H3R) brought by the same Claimant based on a sign displaying the same wording, "the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed". He went on to conclude that "Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass. But that wasn't being claimed here, and as the present claimant has no cause of action, the claim is dismissed."


9) The Claimant has made reference in it's communication to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. This case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

10) If the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

11) It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press and was recently investigated and sanctioned by the BPA for falsifying evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.


12) As the Claimant is not the landowner, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a contract or chain of contracts exists between the landowner and the Claimant allowing the Claimant to issue charges on the land and litigate in their own name, without which they would not have locus standi to bring this case.

13) Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

14) I, The Defendant therefore believe that these charges are not valid and my personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the claimant in this case and I ask that the court does not assist the claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing.

15) The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The defendant has the reasonable belief that the claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action and the threat of damaging the Defendants credit rating to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.

16) It is believed UKPC do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

17) The defendant therefore asks for the court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

(a) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

vii. 5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant. 


b) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



Statement of truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true

Signed:

Full Name:

Dated: 2 July 2017

[charitynjw]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Re para #17(a), your numerals are 'roman' all over the place!

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

Re para #17(a), your numerals are 'roman' all over the place!

Should i just change it to 17 a, b, c, d, etc?

[peter88]

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd v Peter88 (£1,270)

UPDATE!!!

Going to COURT!!!! ( Small Claims Track) . This Dec 20th 2017, i have this last week to submit anything else.

1. What are my next steps? What should i bring

2. Is it worth bringing a community newsletter i received this week that states the reason for frequent breakdown of the main gate which was the reason that forced me to park elsewhere? ( see link to image: https://ibb.co/eV7afG)

3. Should i submit a photo of the main gate? ( Currently still broken still by the way)

4. Should i submit the Gate Key fob ? - which i stated in my defence - as it failed to open the gate at the time of the incident?

5. Do i need to print out transcripts of the references i made to other cases in my defence?