PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Residential Parking Ticket
carpain
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 22:26
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



Hi all,

I live on a private road where parking is controlled by UKCPM (UK Car Park Management), they were introduced by the management company a year after I moved in, my lease/rental agreement has a parking clause that reads as follows

Parking
87. You must make sure that other members of your household or visitors only park vehicles in the parking areas. You must not park where vehicles could block emergency access or exit points, or where they could cause inconvenience, nuisance or a potential danger.
88. You must not park, or allow members of your household to park, business or trade vehicles, trailers, caravans, motor homes, boats or other inappropriate vehicles in the parking areas, on access roads, on landscape areas or in your garden, without our written permission.

UKCPM has given me 50+ tickets for parking around the site and we have a court case in December 2019, I need to prepare my witness statement and need some help please.
In my original defence I have always stated my lease overrides there signage, I did not agree to the parking scheme, they have claimed as I was issued permit I have accepted there contract and the fact I displayed the permit is proof of acceptance.

I do not understand contract law, so not sure by agreeing to display a permit means acceptance of there contract, any help would be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 22:26
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 23:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



Is the claim for One; Two, a few, for fifty or all of the tickets?

Is this all one vehicle?
Have you admitted to being the Driver

Clause 87, IMO. Shows that others have to park in the parking area whereas you have to park without blocking emergency access or inconvenience...

Have you requested a Subject Access Request from UK CPM

Have you enquired from the DVLA WHO has requested your Details and WHEN.


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 23:34
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



Hi Albert

I haven't requested Subject Access Request from UK CPM, this is the first time I have heard of this, as for DVLA I have written two times and no reply.

I haven't admitted being the driver as both my wife and I use the car, UK CPM have 4 court cases two against me and two my wife, all to be heard the same day & time, they are for 6 tickets each. We have two vehicles in total
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 00:18
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



So, you both equally use both cars and as such they need to prove who was driving on each occasion.

Or have they cherry picked tickets which were issued to both vehicles at the same time. then if the vehicle was wrong it is de minimis and the driver still breached their purported contract.

So their are two cases against you for six tickets each 12
and the same for your Wife? so 24

four court fees are £100 and four Solicitors costs are £200.

It may be worth a request to the court to combine the claims in furtherance of the overriding objective. Or has this been done?


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 03:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It would help if you could show your EXACT defence (word for word).

One presumes 'parking areas' is undefined.

Could you give us a google maps satellite view link to the parking are so we can try and figure how a judge will see it.

What were the 'stated' reasons by UKCPM for issuing the tickets? On DYL, not in marked bays? have you taken this up with the Landlord or managing agent at all?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 10:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You displayed the permits purely as a convenience for their staff to recognise residents. There was no intention to create a contract. Indeed what were they offering in that alleged contract? Indeed they could not offer parking spaces as they had none to give.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 10:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:48
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



Our court cases have been combined to be heard on the same time, the cases against me is for around £2450 and my wife's case is for £2350.

Parking bays have been marked up by the Managing Agent, my lease has no mention about Permit parking. Parking permits were added after I moved in, to prevent non residents parking, but this soon changed and residents started to get tickets.

UKCPM have emailed me there 'so called contract' which is just an Authorisation Form signed by the Managing agent, no mention of the landowner.

I was ticketed because initially my permit had dropped off the windscreen and fell upside down on the dashboard, when I appealed UKCPM would not overturn the fine as it was not displayed, despite the vehicle being on my drive way. Basically after this I refused to have the permit, which meant my vehicle has been ticketed more or less once a week, in the winter I put a screen protector so they cant give me a ticket, I have also been ticketed on parking on communal parking bays, So the whole thing has snow balled into this mess.

I have email the Landlord and basically he has confirmed in writing that my Drive is part of my lease and my lease does not have any parking controls, the managing agent however was not interested and wont even reply to my emails.


I am trying to put together a witness statement, however I need help on two points they are claiming;

1. The SIGN is the contract, as I have driven on the private road I have accepted the terms of the contract. Which is to display a permit or have a valid permit
2. As I have accepted the permit I have agreed to the contract

The tickets issued were either Not displaying a permit or Displaying a non valid permit (Which is me parking on a communal parking bay using my permit valid only for my drive)



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 04:36) *
It would help if you could show your EXACT defence (word for word).

One presumes 'parking areas' is undefined.

Could you give us a google maps satellite view link to the parking are so we can try and figure how a judge will see it.

What were the 'stated' reasons by UKCPM for issuing the tickets? On DYL, not in marked bays? have you taken this up with the Landlord or managing agent at all?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:52
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Your main defence should be (although you haven't shown us what your defence actually is) that you have a pre-existing right to park. Due to this, the signs make you no offer, there was no reason for you to accept, so no contract was entered into.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:55
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



QUOTE (carpain @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 21:48) *
Our court cases have been combined to be heard on the same time, the cases against me is for around £2450 and my wife's case is for £2350.

Parking bays have been marked up by the Managing Agent, my lease has no mention about Permit parking. Parking permits were added after I moved in, to prevent non residents parking, but this soon changed and residents started to get tickets.

UKCPM have emailed me there 'so called contract' which is just an Authorisation Form signed by the Managing agent, no mention of the landowner.

I was ticketed because initially my permit had dropped off the windscreen and fell upside down on the dashboard, when I appealed UKCPM would not overturn the fine as it was not displayed, despite the vehicle being on my drive way. Basically after this I refused to have the permit, which meant my vehicle has been ticketed more or less once a week, in the winter I put a screen protector so they cant give me a ticket, I have also been ticketed on parking on communal parking bays, So the whole thing has snow balled into this mess.

I have email the Landlord and basically he has confirmed in writing that my Drive is part of my lease and my lease does not have any parking controls, the managing agent however was not interested and wont even reply to my emails.


I am trying to put together a witness statement, however I need help on two points they are claiming;

1. The SIGN is the contract, as I have driven on the private road I have accepted the terms of the contract. Which is to display a permit or have a valid permit
2. As I have accepted the permit I have agreed to the contract

The tickets issued were either Not displaying a permit or Displaying a non valid permit (Which is me parking on a communal parking bay using my permit valid only for my drive)



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 04:36) *
It would help if you could show your EXACT defence (word for word).

One presumes 'parking areas' is undefined.

Could you give us a google maps satellite view link to the parking are so we can try and figure how a judge will see it.

What were the 'stated' reasons by UKCPM for issuing the tickets? On DYL, not in marked bays? have you taken this up with the Landlord or managing agent at all?



Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 22:55
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



On the face of the tickets, is it possible to determine which were ticketed for parking in communal areas?

Have you a driveway or is that just a row of communal parking in front of flats.




--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 23:56
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 23:55) *
On the face of the tickets, is it possible to determine which were ticketed for parking in communal areas?

Have you a driveway or is that just a row of communal parking in front of flats.



I have my own drive, outside my house, the court cases claimed show my vehicle on the drive way and only one ticket in the communal area
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 16:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



So your 50+ tickets are 50+ for drive way and only ONE for communal areas, correct?

We need to see the actual defence you sent to the court. ITs been alluded to, but without it, giving you meaningful help will be tricky. As others have said, by displaying the permit it was merely a COURTESY and not acceptance of ac otnract you do NOT need, IF your lease has primacy.

What does your lease GRANT about your drive? we need the actual wording, because this will be vital for your evidence.

When you say landlord - actual landlord, ie you have a short term lease, or is it the freeholder? Please be PReCISE as to how you have gained any rights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:17
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



My landlord is a Housing Association, the road is private, the developer for the estate is the overall landowner I believe.
This is brand new development the HA own the houses and the developer owns all the flats

The HA asked me to change my lease once the Permits were introduced, but this was not compulsory, if I had signed my rent and service charge would have been reduced, if I opted not sign I would pay the higher amount, I did not sign the new lease.
The permits were introduced around 9 months after I moved in, we were told it was to stop non residents parking and issued two permits each. However non residents stop parking in the close, so UKCPM started ticketing residents.

The wording for the Parking is stated on my first notes above.

The drive is part of my lease agreement, this is attached to the front of the house,

My initial argument has been my lease has rights over there contract, as there contract is not with the landowner but the managing agent. There so called contract with the managing agent is just a simple 'agreement Form' to look after the parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fluffykins
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:21
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,593



You have been asked several times to show us your exact defence. Please post it up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carpain
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 00:41
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,249



MR A
(DEFENDANT)
-AND-

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(CLAIMANT)

DEFENCE

It is acknowledged that the defendant, Mr A is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant requests that the Claim be struck out entirely as it is without merit and has no legal backing, The Supreme Court case of Beavis v Parking Eye (2015) has no legal bearing on the Claimants case, as it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The supreme court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be hard to establish commercial justification for charging residents hundreds of pounds to park in their own parking spaces.


It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. From the limited information provided by the particulars of claim, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced. This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015). 

The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. 
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. 
HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. 
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending a CPR 31.14 request to the claimant's solicitors on 21st September 2017
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK CAR PARK MANAGMENT LTD, and no proof has been provided.

I have received dozens of letters from multiple different Debt collection agency’s threatening court action and increased charges which is an offence under Section 40(1)(a) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970, as the invoice issued by the Claimant is not a debt until a court issues a judgment against the Claimant.
The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that there claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

The reason for this parking company’s presence is for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, instead, contrary to various consumer laws the Claimant carries out predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation. 

It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. 

It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter. 
I kindly request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.  District Judge Coonan of Croydon County Court on 16/09/16, where the tenants Lease over ruled any Contract by the parking company.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Full Name:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 04:00
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



What relevance is the PoFA paragraph...... you don't give it any relevance at all. For 50+ tickets I wouldn't have used PoFA at all to be honest. What's on the claim form in respect of PoFA is of no relevance it's what is on the NtD/NtK which will almost certainly not have met the requirements of PoFA yet you don't say that at all.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:35
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Bloody hell thats a jumble. Thats a terrible, terrible mess of a defence. You dont even mention your lease!

Did you really send a CPR31.14 request 2 years ago? Youve stated you did! Did you even read this mess before you submitted it? Is this also the rubbish your wife presented for her claim, or is this now ONE claim with two defendants? Youve managed to be startlingly imprecise.

Again: what rights does the lease GRANT you in relation TO THE DRIVEWAY. Nothing more
Tell us
Ive read your whole thread. I wont ask a third time.

Given this is for more than £2k, you need to do some actual bloody work here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:50
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



Looking at that map...

We cannot see which are houses and which are flats.
But if all of the houses including the Drives are owned by the HA? Have the PPC got landowner authority to ticket any of the drives.

Have a look on your council website planning page.
If the estate is subject to a S106 agreement, where your HA acquired the properties, it may be defined in the planning documents.

Although it will not be helpful for the second vehicle, I would deny all attempts by UK-PCM enforcing a contract and admit at best that it is a breach of a covenant which would be between yourself and the landlord or the freeholder.

Have you still got the letter for amending your lease? What is the reasons given for the amendment and was the Housing association responsible for introducing the Parking restrictions.

You have two cars but one drive. You may have to accept that the permit was displayed only for the times that the car was not parked on your drive and in the communal area. and their evidence is that that was on only one occasion.

Where you are, in a position with all four cases being heard at the same time, makes it near impossible to run the same defence regarding the drive for both cars. However because if UK-PCM are not reliant on the protection of Freedoms Act then they have to prove the Driver for each occasion, with one car predominantly on the drive, this leaves one car and two drivers and so they should need to prove the driver on each occasion.

You have your agreement with the HA and clauses 87 and 88 Which should be construed in your favour to give effect to your tenancy as a consumer.

Back now to the calculations of 12 cases for one car and two drivers. finely balanced it is fifty fifty which in my opinion is less than is less than the balance of probability needed.

Defence sequence should be No PoFA and so only driver can be liable.
The Drive is in your lease and out of the scope of the claims.
On the balance of probabilities they cannot prove the driver for any occasion that any car is parked in communal parking in accordance with point 88 of your lease.

All in all, you will need a patient judge, an unprepared hurried opposition Agent (Only got the papers this morning judge)

You do need to make sure that the DVLA have been requested for keeper details for each ticket.
You need to find the extent of your property, land registry for a few quid, if the Drive is there, pay for a copy that can be used in Court. we have seen the case where the small print stating that it is not suitable for use in court being rejected on that basis.

Section 52 Law of Property Act 1925




--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:37
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here