**DISCONTINUED!!** Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Hi Ostell
Thank you for your comments. I do feel that PCM are using their position to intimidate lay people like myself like me into paying and it is much appreciated to have the informed support of you and your colleagues to help redress that balance.
I have today posted my defence N9B as the deadline is this wednesday and it seemed prudent to allow an extra day just in case , so it is too late to add the points about NTK being non-compliant. I have asked for them to disclose all relevant material including, but not limited to
- proof of their claims
- Proof of right of authority
- genuine pre estimate of loss ( I've used to arguments from this forum to show why Beavis does not apply in this situation.)

I have requested an opportunity to amend my case when they do provide additional documentation

Should I keep the matter of non compliance of the NTK until that point in time or would it be good to write to Gladstones pointing out the non compliance at this point , in the hope that they will withdraw ?

As I have said in another post the lease says nothing at all about parking. However the managing agents have said that they are willing to provide a letter which confirms that by virtue of his tenancy my son has the right to park in those spaces. At the time he took out the lease there was no control over parking and it was only midway through the term that parking control was introduced and the residents were issued with permits. however the lease was never updated to include that, which is unfortunate. I'll get a letter from them if this case ever does go to court.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Shame you didn't get it in first as with non compliance there is no case and any action is vexatious.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Yeah. You are right. Initially I just thought they would blow a lot of wind and then go away if I didn't cough up easily, so i ignored them. In hindsight , should have got advice from you guys and nipped it all in he bud earlier.

Is it an option to go online and add non complaince of NTK to my defence ? I could do that tomorrow and still meet the deadline .

[charitynjw]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

If your defence has only just been filed, email the court & respecfully request that the lease issue is added to your defence.

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Put '[Parking co name per court claim form] v [you] Court claim no [XXXXXXXX] Addition to filed defence' in subject box.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Thanks for the advice. I'm proposing to email the court and ask that the issue of non compliant notice to keeper be added to my defence. Here's the proposed text. I'd appreciate any suggested amendments

The Notice to keeper (NTK) sent to me on 11 May 2017 does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, SCHEDULE 4, Recovery of unpaid parking charges.

Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA states the notice must;

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

No period of parking is specified on the NTK


(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
The NTK does not invite, it states that I am now required, which is not the wording required by PoFA

(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The NTK is not in this form


(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

The NTK does give instructions for payment but does not identify the creditor


Since PCM have failed to meet several requirements of the PoFA 2012 as defined in section 8(2) there can be no keeper liability. The claim has no basis and I invite the court to strike it out.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Where it says "required" this is a misstatement of their authority and implying non existent legal requirements on the defendant.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Excellent. I'll add that in.
Thanks

Where it says "required" this is a misstatement of their authority and implying non existent legal requirements on the defendant.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Having submitted my defence, I have now received a letter from Gladstones saying
a) They have notified the court of their clients intention to proceed
b) They have elected not to mediate
c) A copy of the completed directions questionnaire is enclosed

In fact what was enclosed was a totally blank N180 (Directions questionnaire) and a standard printed sheet request for special direction asking that the court sends the N159 form attached to the defendent (me) with a request that the case is heard on the papers alone

Copies of both are attached.
They didn't supply any of the additional documentation which I requested.

This was followed 2 days later by a letter from the court with an N149, notice of proposed allocation to small claims court. This makes no mention of the request from Gladstones that it is heard "on the paper"


Am i right in thnking that there is no extra charge to me in going to court ? If so that's what I would like to do so that I have an opportunity to plead my case in front of an impartial judge.

As a reminder my case is
- The charge is unjustified as my son had permission to park in that location. The permit was displayed and, although partially obscured, can be seen in the photo provided by the parking company.
- Beavis does not apply as there is no commercial need to maintain a turnover of parking spaces in residential parking
- Therfore they need to supply a GPOL.
- There is no loss to anyone
- The notice to keeper was non compliant as it didn't use the correct wording
- The claim on a registered keeper can not exceed the original penalty, so all the add on costs are unjustified.

In short I believe they are using intimidatory tactics to extract money to which they are not entitled.

In which case I just fill in the N149 and ask that the case is heard in my local court.

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

The one they have sent you is what they have sent to the court in response to the allocation to track they have received. When you complete your N180 you send it to the court and a copy to the claimant. If the court does then send you an N159 having considered the questionnaires you will have opportunity to complete a part on there to say that you do not agree it should be dealt with on papers and return that to the court ( copy to claimant ).

[Hollean]

I've now received a notification of allocation to the small claims track and a hearing date, which isn't for 3 months but I may a well start preparing. First question, does that mean this thread has to be moved to a different section ? If so can admin please do that for me.

I'm required to deliver all documents on which my defense relies on to the court at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
My sons landlord has said they are willing to provide a letter to support my case and I should let them know what to say.
I'm thinking of;

We xxxx, are managing agents for "address" and we confirm that "name" was a tenant of "address" from x to y and had permission to park in the spaces allocated to that address in xxx car park.

Should there be anything else in their letter ?


I'll also submit the photo taken by the parking company , uploaded earlier, which shows the permit on the dash although partially obscured by the tinting.

since I'm challenging the validity of the notice to keeper, should I also provide that, or can I rely on the parking firm to provide that as part of their supporting documentation?

Anything else I should submit ?

If I am successful, am I entitled to claim any costs for my time and effort ? If so any guidance on the accepted basis for that ?

[ostell]

You can also add that you believe that the PPC do not have a contract that allows them to take people to court and you require a copy of the alleged contract they are relying on.

As you seem to be friendly with the MA perhaps they can tell you who the PPC contract is with.

[Hollean]

Ostell
Thanks for that reminder. i believe I have covered right of authority in my original defence submitted in response to the claim

Quote
" I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case, else the Claim should stand struck out.
This should include, but not be restricted to;

1. Proof of their claims
2. Proof of right of authority
3. Genuine pre estimate of Loss with workings showing how this was derived.

In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants allow sufficient time for inspection."

end quote
They haven't supplied anything so I'll have to wait to see if it's included in the documents they supply prior to hearing. If not it'll be another point I can challenge.

I realise I've made a mistake in the N180 in that i said I would be calling no witnesses. I should have said 1, myself. Will that rule me out from putting my case ? Should I try to get that amended ?

[ostell]

I think as a litigant in person the judge will overlook that.

That letter from the MA, especially if the contract is with them, would be very helpful. The MA might not be in a position to award contracts. In court you want sight of the contract the PPC have, which should be be with the landholder, and if it is with the MA then ask for proof of the contract chain to the the landholder by asking, in court, for the MA to Landholder contract. I think the Code of Practise required a contract with the landholder so get a copy of that section.

Just show that picture of the permit on the dash. Don't mention the tinting.

[Hollean]

I doubt the MA has much information on what contract there is with PCM. Their job is just to find tenants and deal with any issues which arise. The car park is a shared car park behind the block of flats with some spaces allocated to that block. Most likely scenario is that car park owner has a contract with freeholder of block to allocate spaces and a contract with PCM to police it . My sons tenancy agreement, through the MA was probably with leaseholder of his flat. I'd really need to see the contract between the carpark owner and the freeholder of the flats to see if there is anything in that which takes precedence over the contract between car park owner and PCM, but that maybe difficult to track down.

[Hollean]

My case comes up in a few weeks. I'm still looking for an answer to the question "Can I claim my costs if I win ?" If so what costs are considered reasonable ?

Should this thread be moved to the forum dealing with impending cases ?