Uk cpm parking in residential area, Letter before the claim Options

[Bbl btn]

Hi everybody
So I’m back after almost a year
I got letter before Claim today
So it looks like I need to go through it again
I can’t find the ticket or letters
The only one I have found is
formal demand for 100£ with two photos Showing
Reg plate and second with quarter of the windscreen
But no ticket on any of them
I do not remember that one much but it is for:
The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
No parking outside of a marked bay .”
Which means that the driver parked few inches to far of the line
(it was the spot where it doesn’t matter af road is probably 6 meters wide
Parking space is only on one side, and on top of it on the kerb side there’s flowers
so when you step out you go straight into them. )
I can’t really recall position of the car on that day but it’s comon they
Give them tickets for something like this I would like to draw attention it’s aresidential area
And people live here in peace and parking few inches outside the line is happening
Very often for a reason
Sometimes when you have big car parked it’s the only option
Or some people got two cars parked next to each other (him almost on the line and her
Parked the best she could using a little oh “his”space — no harm in it
Or theres deserted cars or parked for months and it’s common people almost touch this car
to get more space to get out
I could multiply situations where parking outside of the line makes EVERBODYS life easier
There was many pregnant girls along the year and they got tickets for parking out of line or while unloading their car in common ways but on yellow lines
I don’t want to waste the time and excuse myself but true is it’s private court
And people do everything to be nice to each other and tickets like this are not fair
The scheme is targeted on residents and they ripping people for using what they deserved /are entitled to use

This letter before action is kind of different
got some king of a breakdown of fee and note about paragraph 4
Of the pre action protocol

Ok
Can anybody send me to most revelant posts over last year
Did anything changed since Gladstone’s been ashamed in House of Commons
I completely forgot the route
Please anybody help with this preparation
I’m pretty sure they will take me to court again.
If anybody can list the steps or link with them here i would have the start
I’m father of three now and completely don’t have time to read EVERYTHING again
So would like to limit to really most important bits
I have done it before so it shouldn’t be that difficult this Time, what I mean, is I would like somebody to guide me to most revelant cases(newest) and links ,( I read all the forum year ago)
The biggest problem I had lost time was that I got confused and couldn’t focus
On most important bits of my case.
So anybody please guide me to links:
1- with what’s next
2- newest cases about residential areas
3- most revelant cases
Is school run mum still here?
Maybe anyone interested in going to court with me? Or any ideas where to get
The cheapest legal help and is there any point.

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[Bbl btn]

Patel can I use this defence ? Or does it need any drastic changes?

[Bbl btn]

Last post should be
ostell instead of Patel it’s dictionary
So ostell can I file this defence?

[ostell]

Expand your acronyms the first time you use them, ie the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA )

[Bbl btn]

ostell where and how I should highlight I never agreed to anything?

[Bbl btn]

ostell are you there ???
have you seen the sign is there something about it ii should add or take off?
im just sitting on it and will send it of during the schoolrun , is better for judge to read it in hand or on the computer?

[Bbl btn]

Brighton 6.6.19
COUNTY COURT


CLAIMANT UK CPM

AND

DEFENDANT
CASE:




1 The disputed parking charge relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged (denied) 'breach' of purported 'terms' of parking.  These are terms that this third party - - a non-landowning private parking company - Claimant averse apply to established residents on the land at , Brighton.  
However, the Defendant and family (more than one of whom drive the vehicle in question) have lived here for many years and have enjoyed rights of way, and an allocated parking space and other rights granted with the flat, long before this Claimant appeared.  The Defendant's Tenancy Agreement does not impose any 'parking charge' nor a requirement to display any kind of permit to park.   My Tenancy Agreement has not been varied to allow for any onerous risk of daily parking charges, and nor could it be so varied by a party such as the Claimant, who are strangers to the Agreement.
2 Defendant denies entering into any contract with claimant

3 The claimant claims “£100 for PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of 12£ pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984” £50 legal representative cost 25£ court fee totalling to £247. The amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the claimant and is therefore unconscionable when compared to facts in the wholly
different case of ParkingEye ltd v Beavis given the fact that this charge is an arbitrary and unilaterally-imposed penalty against residents offending against the principal
of non derogation from grant


4 It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

5 The Particulars of the Claim submitted to the Defendant provide no statement to the nature of the claim and the Defendant does not believe these particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a comprehensive and conclusive defence.

6 The Defendant has prepared the defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in leasehold residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant. 


7 The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the capacity to offer parking.
-The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.
-Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of247.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


8 The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.
-The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

9 In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well known and well established principle that ‘a grantor shall not derogate from his grant’

10 The signage at the site states that UK CPM manage the site without stating on whose behalf.
The contract requires the Client to display a valid parking permit at the site also refers to valid parking permits, but there is no definition of what constitutes a valid or invalid permit.


11 The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur action).

12 The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act(POFA) 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.
-The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
-There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.


13 The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from the ‘Parking Rules’ on the signage. It is a forbidding sign that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract. 


14 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 interests of the landowner. strict compliance with the British Parking Assotiation (BPA) 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. None of this applies in this material case. 
-In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest […..] in enforcement of the primary obligation’ 
-There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.



15 The exact question regarding terms in a lease was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.
-The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats. 

16 The Defendant also relies upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016, where District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, having found that a third party parking firm cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

17 The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred solicitors costs of £50 to prepare the claim. The Defendant refers the Court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.


18 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA. 


19 I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.


20 I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. 


21 It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.


22 I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with Civil Procedure Rules CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

I believe that the facts stated in this claim defence are true.


is that ok ?
what's better for judge paper or digital -- I didn't go to website at all -I ve sent the acknowledgement by post, and editor I'm working in doesn't convert to word , format.
can anyone advise on it , and can I or should add anything about the sign?
please help I need to send it off today.




can I highlight or bold anything in the text
should I add more about me not agreeing?
if yes where to insert it

do I need to print and send the cases or later with statement?

anybody please help?

This post has been edited by Bbl btn: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 09:20

[Bbl btn]

ostell??

[ostell]

You've said they have failed POFA. Which bits.

They can claim £50 solicitors costs and £25 court costs.

There is no mention of your landlord being demised the space as part of his lease, if that is the case then the PPC have trespassed onto the space.

Have you got a copy of your landlords lease?

Evidence is added as exhibits to your witness statement later

[Bbl btn]

I didn’t really think about it
Last time I have sent them letters in response to Lbc
So this is left overs of the old defence. Should I earase it?
Same with them amounts should I delete it
And wats better post or e mail?
I only have my agreement
When I spoke with my land lord he said he can’t find in his his nothing about parking
He also said road is not his. So he can’t manage it
He requested info from managing agent and they have send him the letter I wrote earlier




Letter from Remus menacing agent to my landlord


Yes, you’re correct with your understanding. As it’s private land owned by the freehold they can implement rules/regulations as may be deemed fair and reasonable to ensure the smooth operation of parking on the site.

Each property is assigned two permits and there is no charge for the issuing of these, however any replacements are handled by CPM direct and whether they charge an administration fee for replacements is at their own discretion (they often don’t, aside ‘serial permit mis-placers’)

All of the parking rules and conditions can be found on numerous signage across the estate which is provided by CPM direct.

[Bbl btn]

Anybody?
Please advise

[ostell]

No they can't just implement what they want when they want. As said it has to be reasonable. Is it reasonable to add a requirement to pay £100 for not displaying a piece of paper?

[Bbl btn]

I dont know how to take it in words I will have to send it of today
Are you there now?

[Bbl btn]

23 defendant's managing agent Remus stated:''As it’s private land owned by the freehold they can implement rules/regulations as may be deemed fair and reasonable to ensure the smooth operation of parking on the site.'' Defendant never sign any contract or agreed to pay any parking charges to any third parties.

24 defendant never agreed to pay any charges as he consider them unfair


will that do?

[Bbl btn]

Do I send it to Gladstone’s too?

[Bbl btn]

ostell I received another court papers today how do I join them cases can I still do it how much time I have if I still can?

This post has been edited by Bbl btn: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 09:16

[Bbl btn]

Is there anybody??
Help please

[Bbl btn]

Guys I really need help
Does it make sense to get legal help from gmb

[ostell]

I don't know how to ask the court to join the cases. Try Legal Beagles for help on this

If you can get free legal help then do it.

[nosferatu1001]

If that help is free, then yes, do so

Can you please not panic so much?
If you had searched this forum you would see you REQUEST the court to combine cases with case no..... together as ....

You however UNTIL you get confirmaiton the yare combined, deal with them separately. So you need to acknowledge service for this new one, file a defence, etc

Post 53 - no, youve misunderstood.
They are only allowed to make REASONABLE changes. Charging someone £100 is not reasonable, and there is nothing stating you "owe" £100 to a 3rd party either - the freeholder cannot bind you to a contratc with an unknown third party. That too is not only not reasonable, its just not lawful.

[Bbl btn]

I have sent my defence too late
So got the default judgment
So only the nr I can do now not is to appeal
So I have to pay 255 fee
Is it good move Does it make sense
I want to make case for the future
I have another claim papers
If it worth it ?
Is there anybody you nterested in going to court with
Me?
I will call gmb and find out is there any help I can get.
Don’t know what to do
What costs would be involved how much of them cost I can win back
And vice versa if I loose how much I have to pay to others