Private Parking Ticket - Default CCJ - Set Aside Case Help, Prepare defence to set aside a CCJ for private parking ticket Options

[outOnTheRoad]

I was renting the apartment for which two parking spaces were allocated with two parking permits. Parking lot is on a street with free parking on it.
Been using one of the spaces for more than 5 months displaying the permit. The other permit was sitting in the back of the car.

One rainy night forgot to display the ticket in the front.
Parking ticket issued on mid Nov 14 in a private car park for failure to display parking permit in very early hours of the morning (around 4am!).

I appealed naively to the parking company stating I am officially renting the apartment and been using the parking space for a long time. Apologised for my first mistake to display the permit on the dashboard. – Declined.
Appealed to Independent Appeals - Explaining circumstances and providing proof that even though I did not display the permit in the front there was another one clearly displayed in the back – Declined.
Ignored the debt collector letters and wrote them back saying I do not owe so stop harassing (No evidence of this I'm afraid - I just remember writing and posting letters to them).

Parking company - Parking and Property Management Ltd

Tenancy Agreement:
3.17 Car Parking
3.17.1 To park private vehicle(s) only at the Property.
3.17.2 To park in the space, garage or driveway allocated to the Property, if applicable.
3.17.3 To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any
spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.
3.17.4 To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.
3.17.5 Not to park any vehicle at the Property which is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed.
3.17.6 Not to park any vehicle at the Property without displaying the correct parking permit if applicable. The
agent/landlord will not be held responsible for any costs incurred by the tenant or their guests if they fail to
comply with this clause

Changed property.

Recently came to know a County Court Judgement against me from the old address.

Solicitors – Gladstones.

Enquired with the solicitors - they said the case is with DBCL.

Enquired with DBCL - they said they do not have anything with them.

Filled a form to set it aside on the basis that I did not receive any documents and hence no chance to defend myself.

"
I did not receive any of the necessary court paper work in relation to the claim. And therefore did not have opportunity to defend.

Following the reasoning for my defence:

I had two valid parking permits in the vehicle.
Permit was displayed in the parked vehicle.
I was the legal resident to user the parking space.
"

Waiting for the decision on Set Aside.

Need help to prepare strong defence and limit the damage to minimum.

This post has been edited by outOnTheRoad: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 12:20

[Advertisement]

[outOnTheRoad]

Based on my case, can anyone please suggest me a nice defence template to use?

[nosferatu1001]

Did you request the docs?

MSE forum, newbie thread. You need to do your own reading, as this is YOUR defence, noone elses.

[outOnTheRoad]

I just received the original claim document and it says:

The defendant was driving the Vehicle/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest....

Apologies for a very dumb question but can anyone please elaborate on this? It does not mention anything about breach of contract!!

[ostell]

It's just the generic roboclaims PoC. They can't decide if they are claiming from you as the keeper or the driver and they don't really know what is being claimed as the breach because they didn't have the full paperwork at the time. there are threads where these poor particulars of claim have been challenged and the parking company has been forced to come up with better PoC.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 11:31

[outOnTheRoad]

omplete Defence:

Claim Number: XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Parking and Property Management Ltd (Claimant)
vs
XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant) __________________________________________________ _________________________
Defence Skeleton Argument
Introduction
1. I am of XXXXXXX, defendant in this matter.
2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the driver of a XXXX, registered number XXXXX.
5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at XXXXXXXX on XXXX 2014.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reason, which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

i. The alleged contract with the claimant is not broken

The claimant has not provided/sent any details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence either to my new aforementioned address or via email and mobile number provided during the initial appeal. The phone numbers provided to the court by the claimant were actually of an automated payment system and were not helpful to reach them. The full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided to my new address. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.

i The alleged contract with the claimant is not broken

1. I was the legal occupier of flat XXXXX from July 2014 to Oct 2015.
2. I have checked the lease terms of the parking area with the estate agent Surrey & Hants Ltd, and they confirmed that the resident of the property XXXXXX, has exclusive rights of parking in the property.
3. Following are the terms mentioned in the tenancy contract regarding the use of parking space at the property:

3.17 Car Parking
3.17.1 To park private vehicle(s) only at the Property.
3.17.2 To park in the space, garage or driveway allocated to the Property, if applicable.
3.17.3 To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.
3.17.4 To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.
3.17.5 Not to park any vehicle at the Property which is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed.
3.17.6 Not to park any vehicle at the Property without displaying the correct parking permit if applicable. The agent/landlord will not be held responsible for any costs incurred by the tenant or their guests if they fail to comply with this clause
4. Due to a human error, a permit which has been displayed during my entire stay at the property was not displayed on the dashboard on the night in question. However, a second issued permit I was provided, that I used for the purposes of using the second parking space for our visitors was kept and was clearly visible in the back of the car for ease of usability and visibility.
5. Covenant 3.17.6 specified above does not restrict where the permit was displayed. The second permit was clearly visible in the car. As a permit was displayed clearly in the parked car, there was no basis at all to issue a ticket.

Solicitor Costs

1. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Solicitor’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service, generating up to £50,000 of income. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s solicitor can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant, generating over £1.5 million a year in profit.

2. Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging.

3. To put this into context, if the work was done by an outside solicitor who charged Parking and Property Management £10 (which is believed to be the going rate for this type of work) then Parking and Property Management would only be able to claim £10, and not £50.

4. The defendant therefore puts the claimant strictly to proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, that work was done by the litigant’s expert staff to the value of £50.


This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

[kommando]

You are only using your lease as a single defence, you need to attack them on all fronts or you risk losing. Even if you do not have the docs there is no harm in making them do some work to prove your statements are incorrect.

NTK is non compliant with POFA 2012

Signage is !!! (so take some pics and post them here, its likely they are forbidding)

Contract with the landowner ? attack it. Its likely the contract is with the managing agent who is not the landowner and definitely not the leaseholder either.

[outOnTheRoad]

I have managed to get an email sent from the landlord to the claimant which says:

Dear Sirs,

Ref: Flat address
Case Number: XXXXX

I am writing as the agent and on behalf of the landlord of the above property to confirm that Claimant rented the property from July XXX to October XXXX and had the full use of both parking spaces owned by Mr Owner

We would urge you to drop any ongoing claims that may be being made in this regards.

Their main defence:

Parking ticket not displayed

The Defendant appears to be a tenant on the Relevant Land however has not provided a full
copy of his tenancy agreement. Notwithstanding this (or any rights he may have / alleges to
have), by receiving / accepting a permit from my Company, he bound himself to the parking
scheme which was in part for his benefit. In taking this benefit (i.e. in having the parking bay
managed), the Defendant must accept his part to play, which was to simply display a permit.

At no time after the scheme was introduced and prior to the first parking charge being issued
was my Company made aware that there was any objections to the scheme. Without concession,
if the Defendant did have a right over the space (which isn’t accepted at present), I submit he
ought to have notified my Company, rather than accepting the permit (and as such the benefit of
the scheme). Any rights he did have were therefore abandoned.

I would like to point out as a point of interest that majority of leases contain a provision which
allows for the landowner and/or its managing agent to bring in regulations that it sees fit from
time to time for better estate management and that the lessee agrees to comply with such
regulations. As such, I respectfully submit, the Landlord agreed to any commencement of a
parking enforcement scheme under the Lease.

Exhibited to this Witness Statement is a copy of the Judgment laid down in the recent County
Court decision in the case of Link v Blaney (Claim Number C9GF03Q9) (May 2017). I refer namely
to paragraph 22 whereby it was held that the landowner’s rights were subject to regulations
brought in from time to time and therefore “any tenancy agreement…must be subject to it as
well”. In light of this, any right the Defendant alleges may have been to him to park would have
always been encumbered as they could not have given a right which was not theirs to give.

blah blah blah...!!!

Do they have any proper standing?

[nosferatu1001]

Only if they prove it by wa6 of the contract.

Their claim is laughable. Entirely assumption and assuming that taking something unsolicited - the permit - means you forfeit any demised rights. Bonkers.

[emanresu]

means you forfeit any demised rights

Under their scenario, the demised rights are still in place. It's just that the OP has entered into a direct contract for the "service" of space management.

There is clearly scope to believe a contract was in place here. What needs to be pointed out was there was no "consensus ad idem" - meeting of minds. It has to be emphasised to the court that PPM are mistaken the permit was there as a contract though they believe there was. It was exhibited a courtesy to the Freeholder so they could manage their spaces

[outOnTheRoad]

Well guys..

Had a hearing today. And the judge decided to dismiss the claim against me..

Could not claim costs as I did not mention those in my last set aside hearing...

Thank each and every one of you for your invaluable help.

Best Regards,

[nosferatu1001]

Wait, you werent permitted to claim costs? Thats nuts!
You should at least have been able to claim ordinary costs.

[outOnTheRoad]

Yes, I am a bit surprised about it as well.

Here is how it all went:

Had a much better experience this time compared to the set aside hearing.

One local solicitor turned up representing the other side. Prob hired for this particular hearing.

Judge initially laid down how is he going to handle the proceedings. Listen to defendant first and then the claimant without any interruption from either side. After which he will summarise and deliver the verdict.

I presented my case explaining the situation which involved the lease, the parking and a second permit clearly visible in the back of the car. The other party sympathised with me which the judge duly noted.

The other party then presented their case saying there was a contract with the sign an all and issued PCN was a valid one.

To this point I thought I was definitely done...

Judge considered the ambiguous tenancy agreement and the fact that there was a visible permit in the back of the car. The contract laid was not concrete enough to supersede the ambiguous tenancy agreement and the parking bay clearly marked with my flat number and the fact that there was a visible permit in the car.

Because the previous judge did not make a note of CCJ costs he could not grant me that. He did not ask for any additional costs and I thought that's how it would be!

And he dismissed the claim!

[nosferatu1001]

Yes its a real shame - you need to keep up on costs, as its the only time you really hurt the other side.

Well done oin the win anyway

Can you add a new thread to "completed cases", with a link back to this one? It really helps others