Judgement for Claimant (in default) |
Judgement for Claimant (in default) |
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 13:11
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 14 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,868 |
I already have another thread going defending a PCN issued by a PPC at a site where my granddaughter lives, and has a right to park under the terms of her Lease.
I've just discovered that my granddaughter's husband also received a PCN at the same site. He'd have exactly the same defence as I have. However he ignored it, didn't get the Letter of Claim, and this morning received a Judgement for Claimant (in default) for the PPCfor £288.55 on a £100 PCN. He could have defended this with ease. But there's nothing to be done, is there? It's all over ...? This post has been edited by vaiant24: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 17:18 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 13:11
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 19:34
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 14 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,868 |
3 - remember some of that ‘escalation’ are allowed fixed court costs. (But there’s sure to be other elements to challenge if the need arises - what do the signs say?) 4 - why would one want to settle at any price if the defence is so assured? They won’t accept a token amount for sure. If anything he should be wanted them to pay him... 3. I believe that the only actual costs are £25 application fee and £75 are their genuine outlays. So an offer of these plus, say, 50% of the PCN so (25+75+50) = £150 is what I had in mind. 4. Despite being convinced of the strength of his case, his dilemma is that even if he has the best case a Court has ever seen, they may nonetheless refuse to consider it because he didn't respond to the (single) Court Claim sent to him, and his excuse of "I didn't see it" isn't convincing enough. Rationally, risking £255 to save £288 is a ridiculous risk. Applying rationality you'd pay the £288 and run a mile. I hate these people so much though that I'm prepared to fund his defence to the tune of £255 (which the PPC won't get) to try to thwart them. This post has been edited by vaiant24: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 19:57 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:12
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 25 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,319 |
It also won't play well that he chose to completely ignore a number of items of correspondence.
I see little prospect of success here. We haven't even seen a copy of the lease which, for all we know, limits the use of the parking space to the leaseholder who, by the way, has no 'title' to the property. That belongs to the freeholder. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:28
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
It also won't play well that he chose to completely ignore a number of items of correspondence. Play well in a set aside? QUOTE I see little prospect of success here In a set aside or the claim? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:28
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 14 Feb 2020 Member No.: 107,868 |
It also won't play well that he chose to completely ignore a number of items of correspondence. I see little prospect of success here. We haven't even seen a copy of the lease which, for all we know, limits the use of the parking space to the leaseholder who, by the way, has no 'title' to the property. That belongs to the freeholder. Well, he should have responded to the Letter of Claim, if one was sent, and should have responded to the Court Claim, if he received it. Agreed that those omissions may not play well but I don't think the others can he held against him. The Claim is utterly spurious. The exact term of the Lease is: 8.2.1.0 The right to park one private motor car in such location as the landlord shall from time to time determine. There are no terms within the Lease requiring Tenant to display parking permits, or to pay charges for permissions from, or penalties to, third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. Under the Terms of the Lease, the Landlord may “In the interests of good estate management impose or revoke such regulations of general application regarding the Building or the flats therein as it may as its absolute discretion think fit (but so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease) [Defendant’s emphasis]. 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:31 |