County Court (CCBC) claim for a ticket issued in my own bay Options

[Judo]

Hi All, I need help fighting against County Court claim.

Today I received the County Court Business Centre claim form (attached) and response pack in post.

The ticket was originally issued by Parking Control Management for not displaying the permit in my own parking bay (we left it in a glovebox). I received similar tickets in the past from the previous operator and always ignored them but this time they decided to claim.

Not sure whether it helps the case but the parking bay is included in my lease and my apartment was originally sold at a premium because of it. Needless to say the CPM seem to be targeting bay owners, as there are plenty of cars parked illegally (car free development) without any enforcement. I can guarantee if I were to walk outside now I could take photos of at least 6-7 cars.

I cannot locate the original letter or debt collector's correspondence and the only one I have is a letter before claim from their solicitor.

This is really frustrating, as I do not think I owe them anything and it doesn't make sense at all.

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

This post has been edited by Judo: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 - 21:29

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Stop taking it like this. You have to realise how this looks to an outsider. They look at what they think a reasonable person would do.

You did not tell THIS ppc that yiure a leaseholder. You didn't tell the MA to take your space oit, and engage to stop this at source.

Paying would be utterly stupid, as it means you accept they have rights over your space. They'd be free to always harass you in future.

We are giving you help, but we also being balanced and telling you where you didn't do what might have been expected of you. If we didn't do so we would be remiss.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 - 15:32

[Judo]

I understand where you are coming from.

I have a long history of defending parking tickets with my housing association and previous parking operator.

I was stupid to assume that by sending parking permit and charges to the same name/address they would be aware who the registered owner is.

I'm drafting my defence using examples from MSE forum and will post here to get your opinion.

[Jlc]

However, they would have rejected your appeal anyway but at least they have been put on notice. If 'ignored' they will argue they have had to incur costs as a court claim was their only option.

[nosferatu1001]

Registered keeper

As I said, you should be stopping this at source, with the idiots hiring the ppcs.

Get an injunction against them for breach of lease.

[Judo]

Registered keeper

As I said, you should be stopping this at source, with the idiots hiring the ppcs.

Get an injunction against them for breach of lease.

I will jump on it once I deal with this claim first.

I also have the following provision in my lease under the "Mutual Covenants": (a) Not to park or to suffer or permit to be parked upon any parking space allocated to the Premises from time to time any vehicle other than a private motor car or such other motor vehicle as may be first approved in writing by the Landlord acting in its absolute discretion.

What does it mean?



This post has been edited by Judo: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 - 17:15

[Judo]

Please could you review my defence and make any suggestions? Thanks!


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at the material location referred as ‘xxxxxxx’. The Defendant has, since xx December 2013, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to xxxxxxx with an allocated parking space as indicated in the lease. At some point in 2018-2019 after signing the lease, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the property.

4. The Defendant had been issued with a valid parking permit in January 2019. At the time of receiving the Parking Charge Notice, the Defendant’s parking permit had been accidentally left in a glovebox compartment of the vehicle after a long trip.

5. As specified in Schedule 1 of the Defendant's lease “the Premises” demised to the Defendant by the Landlord consist of “xxxxxx on the xxxx floor of the building shown edged red on the attached plan and the parking space edge red on the attached parking space plan”.

6. The parking bays at the building contain numbered parking spaces, the legal titles to the majority are held by apartment leaseholders, with the remainder allocated for use by Blue Badge holders. The Defendant’s parking bay is number 4 as indicated on the parking allocation plan included within the lease.

7. Under the terms of the Defendant’s lease, there are no specific references made to the conditions for use of the demised parking spaces. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. No written communications from the Landlord regarding any variations to the lease have been received by the Defendant which suggests that the only parking restrictions applicable to the Defendant are as written in the lease.

8. Clause 4.2 of the lease states that: “To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts and security of the Building and including (for the avoidance of doubt) regulations as to the manner of use of any car parking space or visitors car parking spaces and the nature of any vehicle which may be parked thereon.”. This Clause specifically excludes “the Premises” leased to the Defendant and, therefore, the definition of “parking space” is contradictory.

9. The contract for provision of services between the Claimant and the Landlord cannot be considered “reasonable regulations” under the above Clause 4.2 of the lease. The Defendant has not been a party to this agreement nor consulted during the Claimant’s appointment process. As such, the Claimant’s activities within the parking bay 4 at xxxxx are considered to be in breach of the Defendant’s exclusive rights of free use of “the Premises” leased to them for a period of 99 years.

10. 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 4, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. 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 expressed, implied, or by conduct. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

11. The Claimant, or Landlord, 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.

12. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to “No Unauthorised Parking”. The Defendant’s vehicle clearly was “authorised” as the Defendant had been issued with a valid parking permit via post to the Defendant’s registered address at xxxxxxxxxx by the Claimant. The subsequent Parking Charge Notice and any other correspondence issued by the Claimant and their representatives had been posted to the same address, so the Claimant was clearly aware that the vehicle was “authorised” to park in the parking bay 4.

13. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'No Unauthorised Parking”. 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.

14. 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 £100 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.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

15. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

16. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:
Date:

This post has been edited by Judo: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 - 18:05

[The Rookie]

As I said, you should be stopping this at source, with the idiots hiring the ppcs.

Get an injunction against them for breach of lease.

I will jump on it once I deal with this claim first.

Start onto them now, it’s not to late for them to call off the dogs, especially if they mutually benefit.

[hcandersen]

And no, I don't think there IS a legitimate reason to issue tickets when I park on my own land.

There isn't, who has said there is?

It is YOUR land, end of. But you haven't bothered to make the point with this PPC, instead you've ignored all their letters and notices. Yes, issued in error and without lawful basis, but if they've been briefed in error then your moaning from the sidelines won't affect or improve matters.

But as I said, once you've asserted your rights then it follows that the PPC cannot exercise control, even over non-entitled motorists. As you only refer to a single incident - 'we left the permit in the glovebox- then it's reasonable to assume that normally you acquiesce in this charade.

Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's wake-up call time: solve the big problem, don't engage is skirmishes.

[thevaliant]

I also have the following provision in my lease under the "Mutual Covenants": (a) Not to park or to suffer or permit to be parked upon any parking space allocated to the Premises from time to time any vehicle other than a private motor car or such other motor vehicle as may be first approved in writing by the Landlord acting in its absolute discretion.

What does it mean?

It looks to me like you can park a motor vehicle on the demised space without permission, but if you want something else to be parked (a motor home for instance) then you need the permission of the landlord (whoever they are, named in the lease). I presume this isn't a problem for you.

In fact, it may help your case as the lease specifically allows you to park a vehicle and specifically doesn't require a permit to be displayed.

[Judo]

And no, I don't think there IS a legitimate reason to issue tickets when I park on my own land.

There isn't, who has said there is?

It is YOUR land, end of. But you haven't bothered to make the point with this PPC, instead you've ignored all their letters and notices. Yes, issued in error and without lawful basis, but if they've been briefed in error then your moaning from the sidelines won't affect or improve matters.

But as I said, once you've asserted your rights then it follows that the PPC cannot exercise control, even over non-entitled motorists. As you only refer to a single incident - 'we left the permit in the glovebox- then it's reasonable to assume that normally you acquiesce in this charade.

Yes, it sounds harsh, but it's wake-up call time: solve the big problem, don't engage is skirmishes.

Would you suggest dropping that "glovebox" incident and simply work on the basis of their unlawful operation in general?

[The Rookie]

I wouldn’t describe it as unlawful, while it is, I don’t think that helps your cause.

But yes, you go on the basis that
1. It’s your space, you already have sole use of it so you had no need of a contract to park
2. That they have no authority from the land occupier to operate as you haven’t given it.
3. That while they have a contract with the managing agent, the managing agent has no interest in the land and wasn’t in a position to enter that contract and they have been deceived by that agent.
4. While the managing agent is employed by the landowner to manage communal areas, your parking space is not a communal area and they have no authority there.

[hcandersen]

It's not unlawful, they have been contracted to perform a function. Who knows whether they've been briefed incorrectly, exceeded their authority at company level or simply been pursuing an operative's wrong actions.

Deal with the big picture, please.

[nosferatu1001]

Hca - as they lack any authority to,operate in the space, they never have reasonable cause to request keeper details and so breach the DPA. It is therefore unlawful

[hcandersen]

Which is looking at it back to front.

The PPC had every right if, in good faith, they were acting pursuant to a contractual obligation. The PPC cannot be faulted because they cannot go behind the scenes and investigate land ownership, they may rely on their client's instructions to a point.

And as a Notice to Driver was left and ignored - a response to which could have forestalled the DVLA enquiry - then unlawful is an unhelpful reference and irrelevant in the circumstances.

OP, this is not the Scopes Trial and you are not Clarence Darrow.

[nosferatu1001]

No, they failed ON A RESIDENTIAL SITE to perform their duties with reasonable skill and care, as required.
On a residential site you would make enquiries as to who the freeholder and leaseholders were. There is no chance the ppc did this, as they never do.

[Judo]

Could someone please recommend or share an example of witness statement based on residential parking (bay owner) case?