Court claim form....what to do?

[Carina2020]

Hi,

I have foibles a court claim form in the post today. I have been away from home for almost a month.

The date of issue was the 8th Feb. I have missed thr date of acknowledgement, as only recoved it today. (7th March)

I went online to register it anyway via the portal in the hopes that they won't make a judgement in my absence and stated that I wished to defend the claim.


The claim relates to a parking ticket issues in 2018, for parking in the space in the underground car park of my apartment. The space is mine under my lease (I am the leaseholder) I pay for the parking each year and I also have a valid parking permit. I have lived at the proerty and parked there for 10 years.

On one occasion, I found a yellow ticket on my car. Ir said there was no valid permit but there was no evidence of thos, just evidence that my car was parked there

When I checked the permit has become faded and worn. I contacted my managing agent to ask that the ticket be cancelled (as it is my space! And requested a new parking permit disk, which I had to pay for)

I understood the ticket (30/11/2018) to have been cancelled and took no further action.

Some letter did arrive but I ignored them. I was quite angry at the ridiculous nature of the situation, to be fined for using my own space.

After a while, threatening letters came from a different company. I assumed it was q scam or that theu debt had been sold on unscrupulous to another debt collectors and continued to ignore.

I now have to defend myself for the court claim.

My question is where do I start with this?

Also, can I ask for extra time to prepare this as I have only just received the claim form?

Is it worth contacting DCB legal?

They ate now requesting £289 pounds and I have rhe threat of a CCJ.

The parking ticket was always unfairly issued.

[MIKE770]

ostell probably assist here? sign of the times late court attempts must be short of funds these companies trying it on

[ostell]

You need to get your lease out and see what it says about your parking space. If it is demsed to you, you own it, then they do not have the permission of the landholder(you) to operate. Additionally they have breached GFPR by asking for your details when they had no reasonable reason for requesting it.

Why are you paying for a permit when you own the space ? Does your lease require you to display a permit? You already have the right to park so why do you need a contract for the same thing with a third party stranger

[Carina2020]

The property management company decided to employ UK parking to patrol the car parks. I was given a permit to display in my windscreen when I moved in but it had got a bit faded and stopped sticking to the glass so we'll over the 6 years it has been in use. I had to pay £10 for them to provide a new one (rip off proerty management fees are a whole other thread!)

The parking space is shown on my lease and the title plan. it says nothing in my lease about displaying a permit.


Do I respond to this through the court portal?


Is my 28 days up today, as I could do with a bit more time to respond.


Am I best to get something out quickly or take my time to craft a fuller response

[ostell]

If you haven't already done so then acknowledge the claim anyway using the details and password on the form and see what happens. You are talking to the court at the moment.

If you are allowed to acknowledge then prepare your defence and get it in pronto. You are the landholder by virtue of the lease, the land is demised to you, and your lease has primacy of contract for any alleged contract to park that the parking company claim.

Your lease does not require you to display a permit, nor does it require you to pay a third party stranger to the lease a sum of money if the permit is not displayed.

You have been displaying the permit as a courtesy to to parking company to allow them to efficiently perform their task. There was never any intention to create a relationship with them as you already had the right to park and had no need of another contract.

Even if it were found that they have the right to claim then they have abused the process by claiming more than they are entitled to . Read this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0


If there was an actual breach of the conditions of the lease then the correct claimant would be the landowner.

You could actually counterclaim for damages for breach of GDPR but I can't help you with that one.

If your acknowledgement is accepted then you have 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence to the court. At least it is February !

[Carina2020]

I have prepared the following defence statement. 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. 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]

I POSTED THIS ON THE OTHER THREAD THAT YOU STARTED. pLEASE DO NOW KEEP STARTING MULTIPLE THREADS ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THERE IS NOW 3 ABOUT THIS.

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.