PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Uk cpm parking in residential area, Letter before the claim
Bbl btn
post Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 19:15
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,396



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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 66)
Advertisement
post Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 19:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 21:26
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 497
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Since you presumably have no valid excuse for not submitting you defence on time, you're very unlikely to be able to get a setaside or win an appeal. Your only real option is to pay the judgement sum within 28 days to avoid ruining your credit rating.

Make sure you don't miss any deadlines with the second claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 07:49
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,334
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) DOnt even think about going for a set aside. YOU missed the deadline through YOUR failure to follow the courts deadline. You will not be granted a second go at this, to my guess
2) It isnt an appeal, its a set aside.

The default judgement wont create any form of precedent, but of course you will expect them to raise it. You just reply honestly that you made a mistake and missed a deadline, but havent in this case
Because you wont

You have not read around enough court claims. You are only exposed to high costs (ie their legal fees) IF the court finds you have behaved unreasonably.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbl btn
post Tue, 16 Jul 2019 - 20:00
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,396



Cool I paid the thing and already forgotten I have another
I acknowledged it and send the defence
Got directions questionnaire from the hladstones
What’s my next move should I wait for Sq from court or reply with their for
— aren’t there any tricks on it - I mean , lots on their for is marked olready
No to mediation and some other stuf I don remember now
What to do next and how much time have I got for DQ and WS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 08:32
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,334
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I presume gladstones are asking for a hearing on papers? If so, simple covering letter for your OWN DQ. You do NOT USE THE ONE THEY SUPPLY.
You either wait for the court to send you form N180 or you go download it yourself. I would do the latter

Witness statemrnt - couple months. Has to be allocated ot your court first

Which defence did you send in?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbl btn
post Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 22:29
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,396



Thanks
I have sent the same defence
What time do I have to send of this Dq
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 12:50
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,334
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Show us the defence...

Just get one sent in. theres no point waiting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbl btn
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 23:43
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,396



I have it on the computer but it’s. It much different then this
I will post it tomorow

This is the old one

CLAIMANT UK CPM

AND

DEFENDANT
CASE:

$ the defendant denies entering into any contract with claimant

% the amount claimed id 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

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 avers apply to established residents on the land at Cliveden Court, Cliveden Close, 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 It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3 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.

4 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 an leasehold residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.


5 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 of 242.44 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to
the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


6 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.

7 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’

8 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.


9 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).

10 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 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
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.


11 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.


12 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 BPA(CoP) 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.



13 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.

14 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.

15 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.


16 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.


17 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.


18 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.


19 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.


20 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 CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.


I have posted it before
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: Tuesday, 15th October 2019 - 12:33
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.