PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Judgement for Claimant (in default)
vaiant24
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Advertisement
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 13:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
vaiant24
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 19:34
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,868



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 19:16) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post 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



QUOTE (spaceman @ Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:12) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vaiant24
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,868



QUOTE (spaceman @ Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 20:12) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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 - 21:31
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