Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Court action by parking company for parking in own space
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
I have received 2 county court claims from BW Legal for PCNs issued by Armtrac on my own parking space. One of which a ticket was placed on the car windscreen, the other for which no ticket was received.

Their claim states that I had not displayed a valid permit. I had never been issued with any permit by the management company but displayed the permit that had been given to me by the previous owner of the property. As my car is a company car, they have already been notified of my details as the driver by myself for one PCN and my employer (via the lease company and DVLA) for the other.

I have done SARS request to Armtrac and received a stack of letters from them in return which are quite different to the ones that I have actually received from them.

I have already sent the acknowledgment and the below response to the initial court claim documentation with copies of all the letters that I have sent to both Armtrac and BW legal stating pretty much the same since thing since the first communication from Armtrac.

I deny all of the allegations in this claim as I do not believe that this parking charge is valid for the following reasons:

1. I am a shareholder of XXX Limited, the owner of the land (see appendix 1)
2. I am the leaseholder of XXX and the associated parking space (appendix 2)
3. The landlords covenants in the leaseholders agreement states “to permit the Tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and enjoy the premises without any interruption or disburbance from the landlord or those claiming under it.” (appendix 3).There also is no mention in the deeds of any type of parking permit to be displayed.

Despite my request to Armtrac Security Services and their representatives (letters appendix 6 and 8) for a copy of their contracts or agreements with the landholders (XXXXXX) to issue tickets or any other agreements that could unilaterally amend my leasehold agreement with the land owner (XXXXXX), none have been provided.

I have also notified Armtrac Security and their legal representatives (appendix 5f &6) of a body of case law which has established that, under primacy of contract, the leasehold agreement with the landlord will override any other agreements or contracts that have been made (details below).
Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] where it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

4. The correct parking permit (as issued by the Management company for XXXXXXX Ltd) was clearly displayed in the car window (evidence in appendix 4)
I have requested in writing (appendices 6 and 8) details and evidence as to why they consider the permit to be invalid and what would render it invalid along with evidence that they have issued me with, what they would consider, a valid parking permit. No satisfactory answer has been provided.

I believe that the facts stated in this claim form are true

I have now been sent a Directions questionnaire from the court so it looks like it is going ahead. I am just wondering what I need to do next? Do I have a reasonable case? Will I get the opportunity to submit a more detailed defence? If so what else should I include and when will this need to be done by? Will I get more detail of their claim before I submit it? Any help is much appreciated!

I have also issued a notice before action to Armtrac for what I believe to be a number of data protection breaches including changing my address and sending notice before action and court claim to the wrong address, despite being told on every piece of correspondence of the correct address. As I have received no response from them, I would now like to take further action through the county court. Can I also post this in this thread for advice?

Have you identified the driver ? The lease company nor your employer actually know who that was as they weren't there at the time. With a hire car they have to comply with 14 (2) (a) of POFA, the required additional docs. Without them they can't hold the hirer/keeper liable. Bear that in mind, as well as your other arguments
Add a counter-claim
Make it for £750 each ticket for vexatious and unreasonable behaviour
Thanks for the advice. Yes unfortunately I notified them that I was the driver for the first one recieved. Not sure about the second though, will check through the letters recieved.

Thanks for the advice Lynnzer. Is it still possible to do this as I have already sent back the acknowledgement?
QUOTE (tyson987 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:42) *
Thanks for the advice. Yes unfortunately I notified them that I was the driver for the first one recieved. Not sure about the second though, will check through the letters recieved.

Thanks for the advice Lynnzer. Is it still possible to do this as I have already sent back the acknowledgement?

You could add counter-claims but it will cost you. CPR 20.4 explains

If you don't want to add them now, you could always put a costs claim for damages for their unreasonable behaviour.
See my case and you'll get the drift of it. I got lucky with a damn good Judge and had £2000 added to my costs award
Sheffield Dave
You only get one chance to submit a defence - you can't (easily) expand or modify it later. You will however be asked to submit a witness statement, where you state what you personally saw, did, received etc, and where you attach any relevant evidence (letters, photos, leases etc). Then a few days before the hearing you can submit a Skeleton Argument, which is a written summary of what you intend to argue on the day. That argument is basically linking up your witness statement and evidence, together with relevant law an case law, to demonstrate that the points in your defence are true and logically mean you don't owe them any money.
Thanks all (Sheffield Dave, Lynnzer& Ostell) for the advice. Going to get started on the witness statement, skeleton arguement and counterclaim now!
I am currently preparing a counter claim for one of a number of PCNs recieved from Armtrac for parking tickets issued in my own space (detailed in leasehold) for parking without a permit. I have prepared what I think and hope is a robust defence based on primacy of contract amongst other things. I wanted to prove that they have behaved unreasonably in issuing this claim in order to claim damages for DPA breach and costs from them.

Does anyone know of or know where I can find examples of previous cases where Armtrac have been unsuccessful in claiming against leaseholders for parking in their own space without a permit? I believe this would help to prove that they know that the claims they are making are unreasonable.

Did you 'appeal' to them first?
Yes have sent 3 letters so far in response to their letters. In each letter I have explained exactly why they have no right to issue ticket and asked for evidence or legal agreement which could overide my leashold agreement 'right to peaceful enjoyment'. These letters have so far been ignored
Does the lease make specific reference to parking? It will be a much stronger case over a catch all 'peaceful enjoyment'.
Our space is marked as ours on plans at land registry
Sorry I didn't mention it does also mention use of our marked parking space in the lease.
QUOTE (tyson987 @ Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 20:30) *
Sorry I didn't mention it does also mention use of our marked parking space in the lease.

Rejoice! Magic...
PM sent....
I have now had a court date for 1 of the 3 parking tickets that were issued to me by Armtrac on my own parking space. After lots of research and advice from here and various forums, I have put together a defence, witness statement and skeleton arguement, that i am happy with, based on the details of the leasehold .

Unfortunately at the time I responded to the claim initially, I did not add a counter claim but due to the massive amount of time, money and stress it has caused me dealing with this I would like include 'unreasonable behaviour' in my defence. I have shared the section of my skeleton arguement that refers to their unreasonable behaviour below.

3. Unreasonable Behaviour

The claimant has acted unreasonably in bringing this claim for the following reasons:

1. The particulars of the claim were vague. Reasonable information and and justification for the claim has not been provided. The Defendant has therefore had to cover all possible defences, causing significant distress and denying a fair chance to defend the claim. The Claimant's solicitor is known to be a serial issuer of particulars of claim which arise from an automated template, with no due diligence.
2. Letters from the defendant to the claimant have been ignored. The claimant has not taken information provided by defendant into consideration when pursuing claim.
3. Both claimant and their solicors / legal representatives have extensive experience of such court cases (detail provided on their websites shown in appendices 11 &12) and so have no justification for them not understanding that the parking charge that they have issued to the defendant are invalid.
4. The claimant has shown disregard for accurate record keeping and data storage in their dealings with the defendant by using an incorrect address (point 10 of witness statement) and keeping an inaccurate records of the correspondence sent (appendix 13).
5. The claimant has breached the data protection act in sharing the defendants details with third parties despite the defendant informing them of how the ticket was invalid and explicitly informing them not to share their details with third parties.
6. The claimant has breached the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in obtaining the defendants data from the DVLA, and issuing of a notice to keeper. This requires that to be valid (where no notice to driver has been served) the notice to keeper is delivered not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.
7. The claimant is in breach of the IPC (International Parking Community) code of conduct, the regulatory body, of which they are a member, states that:
“You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charge” ( The claimant insists that a parking permit is invalid but does not provide evidence of what a valid permit is and has not issued a permit to defendant)
“If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. (ticket was issued outside daylight hours when carpark lights were not working)
It also states that
"In particular, operators should have a sound working knowledge of the following areas: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (for operations in England and Wales), Contract - with particular reference to unfair contract terms, Tort – In relation to trespass., Occupiers Liability – both in statute and tort, Data Protection, Consumer Protection and Disability Discrimination."
8. The defendant believes that the claimant and its legal representatives may be misusing the court system to intimidate him into paying invalid parking charges or to gain a judgement against him by default (point 10 of witness statement).
9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. This view is supported by references that have been made to BW legal in parliament quoted below.

“Just to convey the scale of this, another firm that I mentioned, called BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month. A significant proportionate of them relate to parking. They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified.” Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth)(La/Co-op) Parking (code of practice) Bill debated in parliament 19th July 2018

The defendant invites the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety and consider awarding the costs incurred by the defendant in defending this claim and compensation for the distress that has been caused.

My question is ... will the judge take this into consideration or do I need to bring a separate claim against them after this has been settled? Should I state an amount of compensation that I am claiming or just leave it open for the judge to decide?

I will also include a schedule of costs including cost of travel to collect post when despite my repeated requests to them in writing to use my correct corrrespondance address they issued the court papers to the wrong address. What should I use as an hourly rate for my time to prepare the case? can I use the amount I am paid per hour at work, with a payslip to prove this?

Thanks in advance for your help!
The Rookie
EDIT - A Mod' has now merged your threads.

You don't include unreasonable behaviour in your defence, anything that occurred after the invoices were issued doesn't change whether they were owed at the time or not.

You include a costs schedule for full costs based on their unreasonable behaviour, that you present to the Judge (separate to your normal costs claim) after you win.
great thanks The Rookie!
You present your Costs Schedule *alongside* your Witness Statement. You do NOT leave it until the day of the hearing
Good news a win!

Thanks to everyone who helped previously. Really pleased to say that the judge dismissed the claim by KBT Cornwall/BW Legal where the claimed the permit displayed was a photocopy. She stated that there was no evidence that the permit used was not valid. She also awarded some additional expenses due to their unreasonable behaviour in sending paper work to the wrong address. She has advised them to drop a second claim that is almost identical.

We now have a third claim from them. Only information provided is that it is a 'parking contravention' This was for when a permit was not displayed in the car window. I have just recieved the court claim and intend to submit the following defence.

I dispute the full amount of this claim.The parking charge that has been issued is invalid and no contravention has occurred for the following reasons.
1. I have exclusive possession of this parking space, myself and my husband are the landholders and have the right to park in this space by virtue of this lease. The parking space is outlined in the land registry plan as part of the premises covered by the lease which includes the following:
2. The Landlord covenants with the tenants
3. 4.1 to permit the tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and enjoy the premises without any interruption or disturbance from or by the landlord or those claiming under it.
4. I do not require any sanction to park in the parking space. Therefore no contravention can have occurred. The lease makes no mention of a requirement to display a permit to park. There has been no written communication from the management company of the property relating to such a penalty being issued in relation to a parking scheme. This information has already been communicated to the claimant in writing on numerous occasions in relation to this and other cases.
5. Permission by the management company to allow the claimant to operate and enforce such a parking scheme would be a derogation of grant. The obligations not to dereogate from grant is automatically implied into all leases.
6. No contract exists between myself and the claimant. My right to use the parking space for my car to be parked in cannot be interfered with by any third party
7. I do not believe that the claimant has the authority to operate such a parking scheme on my car parking space.
8. The claimant does not have any legitimate interest for enforcing a penalty charge on me. A car parked in my parking space, with my permission, does not cause any inconvenience, financial loss or impact on safety or comfort of the landowner or any other landholders or residents of the property. There is no way it can be justified as being in the interest of other landholders.
9. On this occasion the driver had parked and gone into the apartment after a long car journey to use the bathroom, unload and get a drink. By the time they returned a PCN had been issued. Even if a parking contravention had occurred, which I strongly believe it had not, the amount claimed is vastly above what could be considered reasonable when no financial loss has been made by the claimant.

I would be grateful of any feedback on the defence and also advice regarding a counter claim for DPA breach and wasting my time. Does anyone have any experience or templates of what to write and how much to ask for?

If you are including a quote, then dont have it as 2) by itself - I would indent it as 1.1, and then start the quote with the reference in the lease it applies to e..g schedule 2 para 6.3. However defences do not have quotes, they are bare arguments.

Also, all that grants is peaceable enjoyment. It does not state exclusive possession, nor does it state the parking space is included, nor who the landlord is.

I presume at 4) you meant permit?
This is a reiteration of your argument at 1, just longer. Why do it twice?

The lien "there has been no ....from the management company" is dangerous as is. State there has been NO FORMAL VARIATION TO THE LEASE agreed to by the defendant, nor has a consultation been undertaken with at least 75% of leaseholders agreeing and no more than 10% disagreeing such that a varation could be forced upon a leaseholder .

5) That permissoin isnt the derogation, of course. The derogation is statring that you must now have a permit in order to park in a space that is demised to you already, under a superior contract, as otherwise you are not permitted to park. Jopson v Homeguard, appeal court ruling - you MUST obtain this and read it andunderstand primacy of contract.

6) Reiterates the same point, third time now?

7) No, be stronger. You aver they do not have permission from the landholder to operate their scheme, as you by virtue of the lease ARE the landholder. and you have made no such agreement This permission is required as part of the ... Code of Practice at ... and compliance with the code of practice was held to be a key determiner that a charge can escape being a penalty in the SC case PE v Beavis

8) parking charge. Make sure it is clear there is nocommerical justification - that is also a key point from Beavis

9) I would put the facts - background - up top. Make it really, really clear. The driver was unloading. Dont mention the drink.
Great thanks nosferatu1001 for your help!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.