Parking & Property Management Ltd. - Parking charge in residential car park Options

[emergencychimp]

So the driver got a parking charge in a residential car park in the time from leaving the car in a visitor space and going up to grab a parking permit from an outgoing tenant.

It seems this place is employing 'civilian' type attendants. No marked car, no uniform...

Anyway, of course a valid permit was in the possession of the driver.

My initial question is, do you send the appeal before the 28 days? I've read some people send it a couple of days prior. Or is the normal procedure to wait for NTK?





This post has been edited by emergencychimp: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 20:50

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

I wouldn't send that covering letter
It can be interpreted as a rant

Search the forum (top right corner) for the phrase "reasonably straightforward"

It will produce some threads with a "colder" text to use

When it comes to the part "The Defendant will in particular wish to question the Claimant about the following points" you can list them as appropriate


This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 16:42

[emergencychimp]

Understood. This one seems to be the go to one on MSE.

The Defendant opposes the Claimant's request for special directions and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the Defendant's local court. It is noted that this serial litigator has failed to provide any coherent particulars of claim, providing only scant details.

Other such claims in the public domain issued by Gladstones for parking companies also follow this same 'cut & paste' model, omitting any facts at all. The vague template particulars appear to be incapable of giving rise to any contractual claim in law and the omissions prejudice the Defendant's right, as registered keeper of a vehicle, to understand the issues and make informed decisions and responses in defence. The conduct of the Claimant and their Solicitor suggests an inherent disregard for the CPR overriding objective, when dealing with unrepresented Defendants (as in this case).

It is requested that the conduct of this Claimant and their Solicitor in pursuing scattergun, copied and un detailed claims, apparently as a cheap form of debt collection and to intimidate consumers unused to the court process, is referred for such pre-hearing directions specific to this case, as the Judge may see fit.

[nosferatu1001]

Tjhat says nothing about why you need an oral hearing

For example, that you believe the claimant will only disclose their actual case in the witnesss statement, or that you need to crsos examine their witness about...

[ManxRed]

Something like:

I object strongly to this proposal.

I deny the claimant's assertion that the matter is relatively straightforward.

The issues in dispute include the Claimant's defective Particulars of Claim, and its failure to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the Defendant,

As a litigant in person, I would be seriously disadvantaged against the Claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.

I would also wish to question the Claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.


I therefore requests that the matter is transferred to xxxxxx County Court Hearing Centre in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules where the Defendant is a consumer

[emergencychimp]

Cool. Thanks. Yeah. I did wonder why it was missing stuff about cross examining e.t.c. As I said, it was pretty much verbatim from one used on MSE that was being used as a recommended template.

I'll go with ManxRed's one.

[ManxRed]

The issues in dispute include the Claimant's defective Particulars of Claim, and its failure to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the Defendant

I've not had time to read through all seven pages, so just make sure that both these issues are relevant to your case.

[emergencychimp]

Yup. Particulars of claim are piss poor. NTD and NTK fail to meet requirements of POFA.

Particulars of claim are in post 63.