PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Directions Questionnaire from CSB Law received via email, They’ve asked for Claim to be heard on Papers only
tld2004
post Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi All

My partner (the registered keeper) received a Court Claim Form today for a PCN issued on 30 June 2017 by CSB Solicitors/London Parking Solutions for parking outside our flat whilst bringing shopping in. I have included the Particulars of Claim paragraph below.

No PCN sticker was stuck on the windscreen at the time of the offence, but she received a letter in the post from London Parking Solutions in August chasing payment (indicating that London Parking Solutions obtained registered keeper details from the DVLA within 30 days as she is registered keeper). She ignored the letter as she knew it wasn't a real PCN but presented me with a copy of the Claim Form from Court today.

She did not make any contact with London Parking Solutions, no calls, emails, letters etc - she simply ignored the letter.

Can someone please provide some advice please? Whats the best course of action for defending this?

My partner is registered disabled/Blue Badge holder if it helps?

Many thanks,



Particulars of Claim:

"The claimants claim against the defendant is for non payment of the contractually agreed sum in respect of a parking charge notice issued to the vehicle <vehicle reg> on 30 June 2017 at <address> for the following reason: Parked on the roadway in an area designated as no parking on the roadway or footpath at any time. The terms and conditions to which the defendant agreed to be bound by using the site were clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site. The claimants claim is inclusive of recovery costs as per the terms and conditions, notice of which was given to the defendant by way of a parking charge notice number <number> and the claimant claims £160.00.
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 30/06/2017 to 27/10/2017 on £160.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.03."


This post has been edited by tld2004: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 19:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
Advertisement
post Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
tld2004
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 12:37
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



So I should just delete 8.1 - 8.5?

I'm getting confused with what you are suggesting/what I need to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 13:01
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



This is private land so strictly the TMA does not apply. What I am suggesting is that you have a point by itself, not linked to anyother points, and this is the only point you talk about the TMA at all. So in 8 AND 9, for some reason, you talk about the TMA. ONLY in point 9 would you talk abpout ythe TMA.

9 needs to be expanded. You cannot just state you were not parked due to the TMA saying this isnt parking, because, as has been said, the TMA is to do with public roads and car parks. HOWEVER what you say is that the vehicle was never pakred because it was.... this is backed up by the common differences in term between "parked" and "unloading" (etc) as ensrhined in law in the TMA. For a private company to redefine what is meant by a well understood word such as parking, on what appears to be a normal road (if this is the case) they must bring this difference CLEARLy to the attention of any motorist. They do not clearly redefine parking to include stopping / waiting / boarding and alighting / loading and unloading as being "parked", so as the vehicle was not "parked" according to the well understood definition of the term, no charge was due.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 14:17
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Right, understood. Thanks

I've changed the title of the point 9 then as its not accurate to the point I'm trying to make.

Latest attempt below...

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
7. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park vehicle(s) deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

7.1. There is no agreement within the Defendants’ lease that states the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle having to pay parking penalties to London Parking Solutions or any third party parking management company when the leasehold agreement permits the parking of vehicles on the land.

7.2. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by private parking company signs unless there has been a variation of the tenancy, which has not been the case.

7.3. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot:
7.3.1. override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors.
7.3.2. that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

7.4. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.4.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.4.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson vs Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed vs Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


Alternative Claim – Vehicle was not parked
8. The vehicle was stopped on the access way for the purpose of unloading only, and was not “parked”. This was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court in Jopson vs Home Guard Services B9GF0A9E.

8.1. In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles… for the purposes of obtaining access to the building… known as the auction mart.''

8.2. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not “parking”. The Judge also confirmed that the concept of “parking”, as opposed to “stopping”, is that of “leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars”.

8.3. The vehicle was stopped on the access way because the Defendant is registered disabled, and stopping on the access way was to provide ease of access to the building only.

8.4. The lease provides use of a private garage at the address, causing no need for the vehicle to be “parked” on the access way other than for ease of unloading due to the Defendant’s disability.

8.5. Strict proof is required that the vehicle was not unloading.

Alternative Claim – Signs do not say “no Unloading”
9. The vehicle was not “parked” because it was “unloading”. The common differences in term between the two is enshrined in law in Section 86 (8) (b) of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

9.1. The Claimant’s signs that are displayed on the land only state “no parking” and do not clearly define the term “parking” to include “stopping”, “waiting”, “boarding”, “alighting”, “loading” and “unloading”. Therefore, the vehicle was not "parked" according to the well understood definition of the term, and no charge is due.

Alternative Claim – Breach of the Equality Act 2010
10. The Defendant had only stopped the vehicle on the access way to alight and unload because of their disability.

10.1. The Claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustments in accordance with The Equality Act 2010 as the Defendant is disabled.

Alternative Claim – No offer to park
11. The signage forbids parking and makes no offer to park, meaning no contract can be formed without an offer. This has been well documented from several other cases, particularly PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016] and Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016].

11.1. The Court will be referred to these cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Alternative Claim – No standing to bring a Claim
12. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim nor is entitled to any sums sought. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to London Parking Solutions. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

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

Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
13. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose 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.
13.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate:
13.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording, lighting, and free of foliage to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
13.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
13.1.3. 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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 15:30
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi guys

The Claimants solicitors, CSB Solicitors, have just emailed a copy of their directions questionnaire to the Court cc’ing us in.

They’ve also asked for claim to go to Woolwich Court as its “closer proximity for claimant”

Dear Sirs

We act for the above named Claimant and enclose our completed Directions Questionnaire.

We confirm that a copy has been served upon the Defendant (who has been copied in to this email).

We respectfully request that the Court considers this matter in the paperwork and without a hearing. The Parties attendance is not required and we request that the District Judge determines the matter upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.


Any advice? I want to reply to their email, cc’ing court, saying the following etc:

I want to question the Parking Co in Court re: their behaviour (ticketing disabled drivers, taking photo’s from their own car instead of getting out the car)
Plus, the defendant is disabled so want to state Bromley as the local court.

This post has been edited by tld2004: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 15:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 15:36
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,054
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Do you have an existing thread about this?


--------------------


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
StuartBu
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 15:41
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,932
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



Take your pick
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=Se...ult_type=topics
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 16:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Threads now merged
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 17:03
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,054
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (tld2004 @ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 15:30) *
I want to question the Parking Co in Court re: their behaviour (ticketing disabled drivers, taking photo’s from their own car instead of getting out the car)


What relevance does that have?

QUOTE
Plus, the defendant is disabled so want to state Bromley as the local court.


Irrelevant if it goes ahead on the papers only. Very relevant if not.

QUOTE (tld2004 @ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 16:46) *
Threads now merged

You're welcome.


--------------------


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
tld2004
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 19:44
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Thanks Southpaw82.

I think its very relevant, as SchoolRunMum stated in post number 36 - The parking co have acted in unprofessional and predatory manner and I want to ask them about this in Court in front of the Judge.

I've drafted the below. Any comments or suggestions?
Thanks

Dear Sirs

I refer to the above claim number and the email below from the Claimant's solicitor.

I object to the Claimant's request that the case is heard on the papers only/without a hearing. I have a number of questions for the Claimant regarding the unprofessional and predatory conduct of their employees and it is my intention to question the Claimant about this, in person, during a hearing.

I also object to any hearing taking place in Woolwich Court - I am a disabled Blue Badge holder and kindly request that any Court hearing takes place in my local Court - Bromley County Court.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



This post has been edited by tld2004: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 20:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 20:46
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,054
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



How does their unprofessional or predatory conduct have any legal bearing on the defendant's liability?


--------------------


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
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 07:53
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



As above, really
What you should state is you wish to question their witness about the events of the day, or something else to do with the actual case. Youre not on a crusade here...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:22
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi Guys

We received Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing) this morning, saying Claim will be dealt with at Bromley Court.

I'm a self employed contractor (currently on assignment on quite a high day rate) and I will need to take time out of work to attend Court with my partner (the defendant).

Question:
As a litigant friend to my partner, am I entitled to claim costs for time out of work to attend Court if we win the case?
If so, is it worth notifying the Claimant that we will claim costs if we win and my contracted day rate is £x?

This post has been edited by tld2004: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:29
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,687
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (tld2004 @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:22) *
Question:
As a litigant friend to my partner, am I entitled to claim costs for time out of work to attend Court if we win the case?
If so, is it worth notifying the Claimant that we will claim costs if we win and my contracted day rate is £x?

Limited to £95 anyway - see here . (Unless unreasonable behaviour can be utilised - see CPR 27.14(2)(g) - here)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:33


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 13:44
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,360
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



£95 fo a half day loss of earning / pay. You will need proof of income, and for contractrors the court seems to be quite harsh.

To claim more, as said above, you need to show they ahve behaved UNREASONABLY. See the DENTON case for this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Sunday, 27th May 2018 - 12:05
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.