PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

One quick question about DQ
lyfu
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 13:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



Hello everyone.

First of all I would just like to say that I've handled this very poorly from the start. I told them I was the driver and I pretty much owned up to parking for 15 mins without a permit.

"Dear CPM, Hi, I got a ticket for parking next to my flat ---------------- when I was parking there for around 15 minutes because I was unpacking the rest of my stuff. The agency told me that it’s alright to park there to unpack. I think it’s very unfair to charge me £100 for this, even £60 is a lot of money. If you would like I can pay £4 which is more than the nearest car park charges for an hour." - The letter i sent them

My letting agency decided that they wont help me at all because apparently "its out of their control", so I just ignored every letter from CPM and Gladstone solicitors.

https://imgur.com/a/2Bhpx this is the first letter they sent me.

Now i got a claim form from the county court and they want me to pay £247.29. DATE OF ISSUE IS 08 November.

The big question is, should I just pay the fine or is there any chance that i could fight this?

This post has been edited by lyfu: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 12:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 13:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:55
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



QUOTE (lyfu @ Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:51) *
My agency specifically told me never to park there without the permit, except from the first month of moving in


Verbally? In a note? In a phone call? If it ain't in your lease, it's irrelevant.

Try looking for reasons to defeat this than reasons to do their job for them. Grow a pair!


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 17:07
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You use everything from an Elijayjay defence that can possibly apply

Bulstrode v Lambert may not be wrong but it's more than 60 years old and concerns a furniture business right of access
Nothing to do with parking companies

You've still failed to include Jopson v Homeguard
It's a recent case and goes right to the heart of the claim :

1 Tenancy trumps signs
2 There is no commercial justification for penalties in a residential car park therefore Beavis does not apply
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 20:33
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



And Jopson was an appeal, which carries a bit more weight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 18:13
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 17:07) *
You use everything from an Elijayjay defence that can possibly apply

Bulstrode v Lambert may not be wrong but it's more than 60 years old and concerns a furniture business right of access
Nothing to do with parking companies

You've still failed to include Jopson v Homeguard
It's a recent case and goes right to the heart of the claim :

1 Tenancy trumps signs
2 There is no commercial justification for penalties in a residential car park therefore Beavis does not apply


Could you please write an example?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 18:34
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



No. You draft something and post it here for comment. You are in a process that is vital for you to understand. If everyone else does the work for you, you learn nothing.

You still haven't answered my question at post #21.

You need to read other threads and understand what is going on.

Help will be forthcoming for you, but you must put in effort on your own account.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MatchlessG80
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 18:46
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 21 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,620



I'm a computer science student that has absolutely no clue about anything to do with law.
[/quote]

Okay, but stick around you might be able to help with technical issues to do with ANPR synchronization, data breaches etc .... good luck biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:14
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
You use everything from an Elijayjay defence that can possibly apply


No, you really do NOT want to be steered by that poster, whose defences are templates, too long and wordy and his perceived as pushy attempt at domination of all the residential cases has concerned regulars on here and on MSE for months. Those defences are overly complicated and cite case law which is not needed at that stage.

Instead, use this one from MSE, which needs very little adjustment to make the facts suitable for each case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...04#post75146304

No-one needs steering by one poster with his own agenda. We advise here as a team of volunteers like the regulars do on MSE - the link above shows you a defence to ADAPT. All you nee to do is change the details that make no sense for your own facts and replace it with some lines that make sense, and then show us. EASY!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:53
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:38) *
...



Hey, i have around 3 hours to do this now.

This is my draft

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to “Parking Charge(s)” incurred on 25/10/2017 . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state “The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”, which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xxx’. The Defendant has, since 01/09/2017, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No.1 at that location.

4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents who paid an extra fee and have a valid permit. On the day, 3 out of the 4 spaces were available. The defendant only stopped outside of his rented flat for less than 15 mins to unload groceries and other items, therefore this didn’t affect any other resident.

5. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by a leasehold resident. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

6. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

7. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8. The reason for this parking company's presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses and residents. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

9. 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.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant’s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the ‘legitimate interest’ in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

12. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:32
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



As a minimum, I would include something along the lines...

Parking at the location is governed by a set of leases which are the documents of paramount importance in this case. The Defendant is protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised use of the land for the purposes of its business and its predatory parking scheme by (1) the legal principle of privity of contract which is implied in all leases in the absence of any overriding clause under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, (2) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases, and (3) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 16:07
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (lyfu @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:53) *
QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:38) *
...



Hey, i have around 3 hours to do this now.

This is my draft

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to “Parking Charge(s)” incurred on 25/10/2017 . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state “The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”, which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xxx’. The Defendant has, since 01/09/2017, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No.1 at that location.

4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents who paid an extra fee and have a valid permit. On the day, 3 out of the 4 spaces were available. The defendant only stopped outside of his rented flat for less than 15 mins to unload groceries and other items, therefore this didn’t affect any other resident.

5. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by a leasehold resident. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

6. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

7. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8. The reason for this parking company's presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses and residents. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

9. 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.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant’s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the ‘legitimate interest’ in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

12. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


Much better than Eljayjay's template that is generic, too long & includes stuff not needed in a defence. However adding this would be OK, I agree:

QUOTE
Parking at the location is governed by a set of leases which are the documents of paramount importance in this case. The Defendant is protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised use of the land for the purposes of its business and its predatory parking scheme by (1) the legal principle of privity of contract which is implied in all leases in the absence of any overriding clause under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, (2) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases, and (3) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.


And add this which seems to be missing from bargepole's residential template:
QUOTE
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against residents, and that it was in the contemplation of the landowner and expressly allowed in the contract, that the Claimant could disregard the usual (implied or express) rights and easements when merely accessing their home property to load/unload.



I hope you were not persuaded into a counter claim by Eljayjay...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 14:18
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:32) *
As a minimum, I would include something along the lines...

Parking at the location is governed by a set of leases which are the documents of paramount importance in this case. The Defendant is protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised use of the land for the purposes of its business and its predatory parking scheme by (1) the legal principle of privity of contract which is implied in all leases in the absence of any overriding clause under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, (2) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases, and (3) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.


Okay, so i added. Thank you so much for your help. I submitted my defence and I got a COPY of the claimants completed questionnaire, shouldn't I be getting it as well?

Also, I can't access my claim on moneyclaim.gov.uk, it feels like they have changed the system. It's asking me to Sign in using Government Gateway.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 16:55
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You only get a copy, as it tells you on the form. Court gets original, you send a copy

You use your gateway Id to sign in
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:25
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



ORIGINAL THREAD - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...124194&st=0

What do i put in the D1 section?? Do I just put the name of my local court which is county court business centre.

Gladstone, in their questionnaire, have put

"PURSUANT TO PD27 (2.4) SEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION AND N159. If the Defendant does not consent - Claimant's home court"

https://i.imgur.com/2opE3SY.jpg


Do i need to say that I WANT a court hearing?

This post has been edited by lyfu: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:34
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You need to complete the N180
You put YOUR home court
You of course want a hearing and you add a cover letter. Doing an obvious search on the forum gets you a simple to edit cover story.

If this relates to an exisitng thrad, which i guess it does, do NOT start a new thread each time - yo uadd to your existing one. Click on your username and you can find your thread very easily.

Hit REPORT and ask a mod nicely to merge this thread with your original one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:47
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Search for the phrase "Reasonably straightforward" for examples of replies
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:30
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:34) *
You need to complete the N180
You put YOUR home court
You of course want a hearing and you add a cover letter. Doing an obvious search on the forum gets you a simple to edit cover story.

If this relates to an exisitng thrad, which i guess it does, do NOT start a new thread each time - yo uadd to your existing one. Click on your username and you can find your thread very easily.

Hit REPORT and ask a mod nicely to merge this thread with your original one.



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...11#post71763411 - this is how I completed the questionnaire.

Gladstone also gave me this https://i.imgur.com/crtsAFd.jpg


I did some searching like the other user suggested, and I found your older post. Do I just write this on a separate piece of paper and send it off with the questionnaire? I thought I will just have to say no to their request and thats it but obviously its always more complicated.

Here's your post
"The Defendant has been informed that the Claimant has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
The Claimant also requests to transfer the hearing to the claimants local court if the Defendant does not consent.

The Defendant objects strongly to these proposals.

The Defendant denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

The issues in dispute include ...............WHAT DO I PUT HERE..................
As a litigant in person, the defendant would be seriously disadvantaged against the claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.
The defendant will probably also wish to question the claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.
The defendant will in particular wish to verify that .............AND HERE?

The defendant therefore requests that the matter is transferred to his local court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules when the defendant is a consumer. "

This post has been edited by lyfu: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:44
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



For your caps - you put the items they will dispute with their witness, such as locations and legibility of signage, etc.
Basically: facts in dispute

Verify the location contract is valid etc.

DId you hit report?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:44) *
For your caps - you put the items they will dispute with their witness, such as locations and legibility of signage, etc.
Basically: facts in dispute

Verify the location contract is valid etc.

DId you hit report?


Yeah I did, but I linked the wrong thread, so I did it twice.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...124194&st=0 this is the correct thread

My brain isn't working today, the deadline is super close. (I forgot what it even was tbh)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The issues in dispute include the failure to disclose a cause of action, the defendant's right to park briefly outside his own residence and the claimant's legal capacity
As a litigant in person, the defendant would be seriously disadvantaged against the claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.
The defendant will probably also wish to question the claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.
The defendant will in particular wish to verify that the claimant has a lawful contract that does not amount to a derogation from grant

This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyfu
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:03
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,845



QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
Those links don't make sense as your old thread

One is a ParkingEye case. The company issues claims itself. It doesn't use Gladstones
The other is UKPC that uses SCS as its solicitor


Yeah, sorry. I got confused and I forgot that I've got another ticket from parkingeye.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...124194&st=0 this is the correct one.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:31
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