no you need to start a new thread of you own

this one is for advising tissot regardless to where they are at..

its not Semantics no

only a council/police/court can fine you for parking

these are speculative invoices not a PENALTY charge notice

for supposedly entering into and breaking some mythical contract.

when you start your own thread

please complete this

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***

dx

sorry to jump down your throat as well but the parking co's rely heavily on the ignorance of the general public ( and the press doesnt help by always calling them fines) to give themselves some air of authority and gravitas. If people knew exactly what they were and what hoops the parking co's need to jump through to issue a demand that was actually lawful then no-one would ever pay up and these companies would be broke. So we do correct people for using the wrong nomenclature because we want readers of these threads to know what it is actually about.

Lets be clear, unlawfully ticketing someone for parking in their own space doesnt solve any parking problems for the landowner or tenants

So a fair amount of time had passed and I phoned the courts to ask what was going on. Turns out I didn't receive a letter from the courts on the 11th June. The letter was just for my reference asking the claimant to.comply with CPR PD 7.3, 7.4 or 7.5 and serving documents.

Turns out they haven't done this by the requested date 2nd July.

The person I called from the local county court said this means I can apply for it to be struck off.

Not sure how I go about this ?

Kind Regards

Tissot

you write to the court ad ask them to strike out the claim because they have failed to comply with the order.

simple

you write to the court ad ask them to strike out the claim because they have failed to comply with the order.

simple

So I called the courts again to clarify and turns out they have filed the relevant documents but I was never sent them from Gladstone's and they have just been sent to the court ! They have said it has now been allocated to the judge awaiting a date.

then you write to the coyrt and ask them to strike out the claim on the basics they have failed to follow the procedure/comply with order. You can only win with this move, not lose anything

So they have given a date for the hearing 13th Feb, attached is claimant witness statement. And the contract they have with the estate management, no contract existsts with the freeholder or leaseholder.

Not sure where to start with the witness statement but seems the point is still valid about a contract between landowner and parking company, even if the contract exists between PPM and estate management ?

The tenant should still have supremacy of Contract over the Managing Agent and PPC. Could you put those docum,ents into a multi page PDF, that allows us to zoom in and read them better, it also saves time by not downloading a load of separate jpegs.

Yes of course, I am using a tablet at the moment and don't have access to a PC so will do that as soon as possible !

they are damned by their own words, look at para 8 of the WS where they are quoting another case. There is no bare licance to allow ANYONE to park, their sigange and the permit scheme is prohibitive. You ram this point home, there is no genuine offer of terms to park, the sigange is prohibitive in nature so there cannot be that meeting of minds to agree terms. You cant form a contract by agreeing that the only way of completing it is to break it. That makes the charge an unlawful penalty and thus unenforceable. (there is case law on this so look it up)

All this is besides the fact the lease of the flat you rent has supremacy of contract and in any case PPM are uninterested third parties as they dotn have a contract wit the landownwer but with the managaing agents, who havent shown any authority to offer such contracts ( they will need a carte blanche from landowner) and if they did, thi would be undoubtedly a change in the lease conditions and your LL hasnt received such a change in their lease.

Here is the Claimant WS in PDF and suitably redacted, could an Admin remove the JPEGS from my last post please.

Thanks

tissot

CLAIMANT_WS_REDACTED.pdf

Thanks EB I shall get started on my WS and look at previous 'bare license' cases.

One difficulty here is that I assume you are the tenant renting the flat and not the leaseholder who has bought the leasehold. Yes? The leaseholder is your landlord?

In which case we don't know what the lease to the leaseholder says. It might say that the leaseholder's use of their allocated space is subject to any parking rules made by the freeholder and/or the managing agent. Leases often do. In which case the parking company might be entitled to issue a PCN if the rules are not complied with. Of course even if the lease does say that it wouldn't mean you are automatically liable. The parking co still has to comply with the many other legal requirements of evidence, signage, etc, which they frequently screw up.

Your tenancy lease isn't definitive about his. The leaseholder (your landlord) cannot give you better rights than they themselves have.

So-called "supremacy of contract" has not, IMV, been established yet as we don't know what the contract (to the leaseholder) says.

Hi Ethel,

Yes I am indeed the tenant and I am in fact trying to get a copy of the original lease from the leaseholder (Landlord) to see what it says.

The actual tenancy agreement does not state anything about permits etc or restrictions on parking, would this not be supremacy of contract ?

Or would it need to be evidenced in the lease itself ?

This is my WS so far,

I am really out of my depth here so am going through other WS and looking up cases for reference that have been used before that may apply to my case.

I thought it best to submit as it is so far so I dont go down a path thats ultimately going to end badly!

PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(CLAIMANT)

-AND-

XXXXXXXXXXXX

(DEFENDANT)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXXX

I, XXXXXXXXXXXX WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court

before.

1. The defendant has supremacy of contract as the legal tenant of the property which includes the use of the parking space in question.

2. Parking and Property Management are uninterested third parties as they do not have a contract with the Freeholder or Leaseholder.

3. The only contract that exists is that between Parking and Property Management and the Estate Management company who have not shown authority to offer such contracts.

4. If such a contract existed that would require a change in the lease conditions and the Leaseholder has not received as such.

5. As per the claimants implied contract on their signage, there is no bare license to allow anyone to park, their signage and the permit scheme is prohibitive.

6. There is no genuine offer of terms to park, the signage is prohibitive in nature so there cannot be that meeting of minds to agree terms.

7. A contract can not be formed by agreeing that the only way of completing it is to break it. That makes the charge an unlawful penalty and thus unenforceable.

8. Parking Eye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.

9. Parking Eye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.

10. I also refer the court to Parking Eye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined Parking Eye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that Parking Eye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.

11. The claimant failed to send the defendant the ‘particulars of claim’ during this claim process. Meaning a full defence can not be submitted due to little information provided about the claim.

Now I understand its not finished and I am genuinely trying here but would appreciate any help and directions to go down.

regards

tissot

I'm a little puzzled as I'm sure when I made post #114 last night this was a much shorter thread and had a copy of the clauses from the tenancy agreement attached to it. Am I just having a senior moment or have some threads been merged overnight? The point I raised may already have been dealt with.

Ok point 3 have you actually seen the contract between the MA and the parking co? If not you say the defendant does not believe there is a contract with the landowner and that any contract between the claimant and managing agent does not give the claimant locus standi as the MA is an uninterested third party who does not have the authority to offer such contracts.

Make then show they have something rather than letting the court taking it as read that such a contract exists. Quite often they are out of date even when they wee properly entered into with many sites. Again this is something covered in other cases, judges dotn often accept that an open ended contract is still running without some other proof that it has been extended beyond it original year or whatever.

Then you look up other cases where this is persuasive, the parking prankster's blogspot is a good place to start.

merge points 5. 6 and 7 into one

As for any case law, you chuck the kitchen sink at this. quote the case ref in your WS and have a copy of each report in your evidence bundle. It is polite but not vital so send copies of everything to the court and the other party but if you are quoting reams of stuff just the reference will suffice as long as you have a copy to share at court. They either apply or they dont. Screen shots of the source material is good enough.

The "contract" between MA and Parking Co is on page 4 of the claimant's WS

they have a contract with the managing agents so no chain of authority.

No evidence that it hasnt been terminated or lapsed.

Judges have previously kicked out claims just because the contract doesnt stipuate its lifespan and without proof it is still running the parking co merely has a piece of paper that says they DID have a contract on such a date but no proof it is still live.

More digging to find examples, try the parking pranksters blog first, you may have to go back a good bit.

Hey EB,

I found this,

PACE v Lengyel C7GF6E3R

http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Specifically Para 9 shows some similarities to the contract produced to me.

What do you think ?

Regards,

tissot

I think you need to focus more on the lack of contract created between you and the parking management company. Of course, lay out your argument about lack of authority, but you've pretty much done that already - you need to demonstrate that there isn't any contract between you and the fleecers too.

now the case you dug out may well be useful in a number aof ways.

Fisrtly you need to consider the "contra preferentum" rule the judge told himself he must abide by. In short it maens as the parking co wrote the contract they have to prove every bit applies and the wording is not taken in any way that is to their advantage. In that case it became clear that there was no right to form contracts with the public given to the parking co my the managing agents ( and that assumes they had a right to enter into the agreement on behalf of the landowner) and the wording of the signage was so rubbish it didnt offer a contract to aprk either. Liewise the argument about who is being offered terms would eb relevant of the signage actually said anything useful but they didnt in that case but it did raise the major point of parking permits and the lack of them means that no contract was offered.

if you reread the transcript and understand the points made you can use them but dont rely on a judge reading that and just agreeing with it being the same, you ahve to show why it is relevant to some degree and then you will find they will give you the nod or whatever that indicates they see what you are sayinga nd you know why it applies, even if they dont agree entirely with you.

This makes the cited case persuasive rather than compelling but judges love precedent so that is a big plus for you.

Fisrtly you need to consider the "contra preferentum" rule the judge told himself he must abide by. In short it maens as the parking co wrote the contract they have to prove every bit applies and the wording is not taken in any way that is to their advantage.

Sorry ericsbrother, but that isn't what it means.

It's a long time since I was a contract law student but even I remember this one. It's a legal principle which, broadly speaking, means that where there is ambiguity in a contract a clause will be interpreted against the party who the party who drafted it and seeks to rely on it. It's how the judge interprets what the contract means if there is ambiguity It has no relevance if there is no ambiguity in the contract. I don't remember contractual ambiguity being an issue in OP's case, but I haven't gone back and read it all.

I submitted my WS and I then received a supplementary WS trying to disprove the points in my WS.

Can anyone shed any light on this one?

The case they refer to states the claimant didn't have any mention of a parking space in his tenancy agreement however I do. The only thing I don't have is the Lease as the LL isn't comfortable with giving me a copy.

Kind Regards,

Tissot

CLAIMANT SUPP WS REDACTED.pdf