County Court Claim - UK parking Control (DCB Legal)

[Carina2020]

Hi,

I posted in the other forum. I received 2 parking tickets for parking in my demised residential space. My paper parking permit must have got taken off when the car was valet cleaned. (You can see the glue marks in the photos from where it used to be).
One ticket was cancelled via the property managing agent. The other wasn't and it has now been passed to DCB Legal and been sent to court. I have submitted the DPO request. They only gave me info on the live ticket and not the cancelled one. I also submitted the CPR 31.14 to DCB legal.

I have prepared the following defence statement. Any feedback welcome.

I didn't want to go into why I ignored the dodgy, threatening bailiff letters that started to appear in 2021 - as I thought my case was strong enough without this.

I would be keen to have any feedback - Thanks!


defence:

1. defence:
2. The defendant is the landowner of this parking space. It is demised to the the defendant as per the terms of the defendant’s lease agreement and land registry. The defendant has been the leaseholder since 2012 and use the parking space continually through this period. The defendant’s lease has primacy of contract for any alleged contract to park than that of the claim by UK Parking Control Limited.
3. The claim refers to a PCN issued at xxx, this is the post code of another car park in the same development.. The defendant parks and has access of the car park at xxx
4. The terms of the defendant’s lease do not require the leaseholder to display a permit, nor does it require the leaseholder to pay a third-party stranger to the lease a sum of money if the permit is not displayed.
5. The defendant has displayed a permit as a courtesy to the parking company to allow them to efficiently perform their task. There was never any intention to create a relationship with them as the defendant already had the right to park and had no need of another contract.
6. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.
7. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.
8. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.
9. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.
10. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with a penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.
11. The defendant complained to the managing agent after receiving two PCN notices in a period of days and was advised that the tickets be cancelled due to the reasons above.
12. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
13. The defendant denies that the sum claimed £289.96 is recoverable as it is set as a level which is above the costs of recovery or operating the scheme (Parking Eye vs Beavis). The sum claimed is unconscionable and unfair as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The sum claimed also includes an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process as it is an inflated claim.
14. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety
15. The acknowledgement of service was submitted after the 14 days due to the defendant being away from home. However, the defendant prepared their defence as soon as possible following receiving the Court Claim form. The defendant also uses a communal mailbox in the foyer area of the apartment block and due to the delays to mail caused by Covid and security issues, advises that the Claimant should use a recorded delivery service for such important court forms

[ostell]

WHY HAVE YOU STARTED ANOTHER THREAD ??? THE INFORMATION IS NOW SPREAD ACROSS 2 THREADS !

Forget about 15

For abuse of process you might want to mention https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0


Statement of truth at the end.

[Carina2020]

I started a new thread because I wasn't sure that the welcome thread was the right forum to post this defence statement and I only have a day or two to respond to the court. I can delete one.


Thanks for your prompt response