PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking & Property Management Ltd. - Parking charge in residential car park
emergencychimp
post Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:49
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



So the driver got a parking charge in a residential car park in the time from leaving the car in a visitor space and going up to grab a parking permit from an outgoing tenant.

It seems this place is employing 'civilian' type attendants. No marked car, no uniform...

Anyway, of course a valid permit was in the possession of the driver.

My initial question is, do you send the appeal before the 28 days? I've read some people send it a couple of days prior. Or is the normal procedure to wait for NTK?





This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
11 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:49
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 07:44
Post #61


Member


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



The form will tell you which day is is assumed delivered. It is usually 5 days from issue to delivery so that gives you 33 days from date of issue to having to get your defence to the court. You calculation was correct but don't cut it too fine just in case there are problems getting the defence to the court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 11:00
Post #62


Member


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



Total of 33 days for the court to RECEIVE the defence. Print, sign, scan to PDF and email (or have a signature already in the document, then just convert to PDF. DO NOT just type the signature, this is NOT allowed)

PoC are likely utterly deficient. Just type it out here, dont waste time. its short
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 16:52
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



OK, here is the particulars of claim. To my untrained eye, not as embarrassingly poor as others I have that Gladstones have somehow managed to bash out.

QUOTE
The driver of the vehicle registration ******* (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 10/07/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Block A & D 1-33 Alexandra Park Queen Alexandra Road High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP11 2HJ.

The defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for parking charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £7.07 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 17:05
Post #64


Member


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



Well apart:
1) no cause of action. What terms? Are they alleging contractual charge, damages for breach of contract, trespass?
2) usual rubbish thhat they dont know wha tthe defendant was, keeper or driver, so lets allege both!
3) No explanaation of where indeminty costs can be leivied against a keeper
4) No explanation of how theyre purusing the keeper (POFA? Who knows, they havent said!)

In short, its basically the same

NOtice they have 1080 characters and theyve used less than half.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 08:05
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
NOtice they have 1080 characters and theyve used less than half.

94 words to be precise. Is that all they can muster? A complete poverty of understandable information about their case against you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 23 Mar 2018 - 10:07
Post #66


Member


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



Characters, not words, is the measure here wink.gif
ABout 400 is their usual effort. WOeful and pathetic, and negates theri argument that the MCOL system doesnt allow them much space - you opoint out they didnt even use all the space they were given!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 18:28
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Draft defence. Thoughts? I wasn't sure to add in that a permit was located once it became clear one was needed.

Statement of Defence

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a. There was no complaint "Letter before County Court Claim", under the Practice Direction
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of "draft particulars". The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information
c. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information
d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The claimant had the opportunity to use 1080 characters and has used less than half of what is available to them.
It is clear the claimant does not know whether the defendant was the driver or the keeper and so is alleging both. There is no explanation of where indemnity costs can be levied against a keeper.

Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the "Letter before County Court Claim" should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to "take stock", pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. "Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided".
e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted
f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars 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)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.

2. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict 'keeper liability' provisions!
3.1. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a "relevant obligation" and "relevant contract", fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.
2.1.1) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on !!!8216;reasonable assumption!!!8217;. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

3.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant suggests that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

3.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
3.2.1. There was a 'relevant obligation' either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and 4.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

3.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

4. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (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 BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage "contract", none of this applies in this material case. The claimant's vehicle was parked in a clearly marked visitor bay, under a sign that read 'Private property - Strictly residents parking only' making no mention of a required permit.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs
b. 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
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 , BPA Code of Practice and Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as "compensation" from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a. It is believed Parking and Property Management Ltd 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.

8. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

8.1 Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

8.2 At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable.

9. There is no obligation in law for the driver to identify the driver of the vehicle and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

10. The claimant has yet to respond to a letter requesting a compliant letter before claim e-mail by the defendant and sent to Gladstones Solicitors Ltd on the (date).

11. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

12. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder 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 landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

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.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 19:58
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You've copied some stuff that is VERY wordy, so remove this waffle for starters:

QUOTE
...the aims of which are:
i. "Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided".
e. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted
f. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars 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)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
g. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for a reasonable time to file another defence.



Go through it and read it with a fine tooth comb, asking yourself what's being said, removing repetition & waffle and removing stuff that makes no sense for this case, for example, 8.2 talks about a pay-per-hour tariff!

I saw nothing in the defence (and it should be near the top) telling the Judge this:

QUOTE
the driver got a parking charge in a residential car park in the time from leaving the car in a visitor space and going up to grab a parking permit from an outgoing tenant.


...and that lends itself to using Jopson v Homeguard, like plenty of the other residential cases on this forum.

Search for Jopson defence

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 20:09
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Thanks. I was unsure about some of the waffle but I saw a lot of other defences stick it in. Will remove it and have a look at the Jopson defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 20:13
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Read this concise defence written by MSE poster Johnersh, who is a solicitor:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...32#post72977032

It has Jopson and you can copy it/adapt it, that was his intention when he posted it, that people use it but always adapt to suit, not blindly copy verbatim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 22:42
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



It's a nice and concise defence for sure but can I really use the main parts in paragraph 6 and 7 as I have no lease to rely on and provide.

This is how is stands after I've chopped some lease stuff out.

Also, what's with the !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217 has some formatting been broken or something?

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
8.3 As the signage was not clear, no permit was initially displayed however, the driver of the vehicle sought out the parking permit when it became clear one was needed and was displayed in the vehicle within around 10 minutes. By this time, a parking charge had been put on the vehicle.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 22:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 08:52
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,194
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You don't need the statement of truth as its a defence not a statement, that comes later. Not sure why it was on that template.


--------------------
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
emergencychimp
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 13:59
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



So do people recommend to go with the Johnersh defence and remove the statement of truth as opposed to my initial defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 14:37
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



I often comment on residential parking cases, but I have hesitated to do so in your case because, strictly speaking, it is not in my opinion a residential parking case. I regard a residential parking case as one where the contents of a lease or tenancy agreement trump a johnny-come-lately parking scheme.

You appear to be a stranger to the lease, i.e. you are not a party to it. You cannot, therefore, take any comfort from the terms of the lease unless you can claim that you were authorised to park in the residential carpark by someone who had the right under the lease to grant that authorisation to you.

Are you confident that, by the time you need to prepare your witness statement and submit your evidence, you will be able to provide a copy of the lease and explain how in accordance with its terms you were authorised to park in the carpark?

I have seen cases on the forum where defences have failed because, paraphrasing, the defendant has said "I have rights under a lease" and the judge has said "no, you do not, it is not your lease".

Laura Jopson won her case because she was a leaseholder delivering furniture to her own flat. She was not a visitor collecting a piece of paper.

I really do not wish to put a dampener on your defence but, as they say, forewarned is forearmed. Await the comments of others before deciding what to do.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 14:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 16:46
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



Indeed. This is my concern with the Jopson defence. I very much doubt I can provide a copy of the lease. What I do know is the current tenant's (at the time of receiving the PCN) tenancy agreement started sometime in February 2016. The parking permit scheme came into effect March 2017.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 17:56
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



You could obtain a copy of the lease from the Land Registry. On its own, however, it probably would not do you much good. As indicated in my last post, you would need to show how you gained the right to park under the lease without being a party to it.

I became interested in residential parking matters because my kids own a flat with an allocated parking space. Their lease contains a Tenant's covenant "Not to use the Parking Space other than for the parking of a private motor car or private motorcycle which has an MOT certificate if required and which is in the regular use of the Tenant or other occupier of the Property".

If the lease for the flat where your vehicle was parked says something similar, it would not help you because (presumably) the vehicle was not "in the regular use of the Tenant or other occupier of the Property".

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 21:45
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Your defence does need signing & dating and confirming that the facts within it are true - don't just leave it blank/unsigned/dated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Sat, 7 Apr 2018 - 08:05
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:52) *
You don't need the statement of truth as its a defence not a statement, that comes later. Not sure why it was on that template.


Rubbish. Defences do have to be verified by a Statement of Truth.

Practice Direction 15:

2.1 Part 22 requires a defence to be verified by a statement of truth.

That's why it's pre-printed on form N9B


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emergencychimp
post Sat, 7 Apr 2018 - 12:04
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 7 Sep 2013
Member No.: 65,032



OK. Thanks for confirming.

I think I'll go with the Johnersh defence. It contains the same stuff as my initial defence but more concise. I'm not sure about
QUOTE
The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


as I most likely won't have access to the lease but I'm not sure of any other relevant judgments.

I will be sending this in today so if anyone has anything else to add.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 00:36
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You definitely need to use Jopson, so I would not be removing that bit!

If you have, never mind, as long as you have made the point that the car was only stopped for the time it took to get the permit, you will be including the Jopson transcript in with your evidence, later, at Witness Statement stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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 - 08:06
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