Private Resident vs UKPC. Taking me to court

[Rebecca91]

Hello all!

 

This is my very first post.

I have used this site for a number of years for advice,

and I do hope the helpful nature of the site can assist me in my current issue.

 

I am a resident at my flat (renting).

The flat in questions carpark is managed by UKPC.

The carpark has signs around it, (although we have 2 entrances, one of which actually has no UKPC sign as you come into the carpark).

The signs do state you need to display a valid permit.

 

I have a number of tickets that have been issued due to not displaying a permit for the space.

 

I received a LBA previous week, and

yesterday an N1 form from the County Court stating that UKPC will be following up on 2 parking charges (£405 in total).

 

My contract when I moved in stated that I have a carpark space I can freely use, and has no mention of a permit.

 

After receiving a LBA I contacted the managing agents of the flats,

who contacted Ukpc.

The agents told ukpc I am a resident and I am able to park in the space

(a space which has the same name as my flat number)

 

UKPC have refused to cancel the charge, stating they have already incurred costs and will be proceeding.

 

Any advice will be incredibly useful, and I the thank you for your time in reading.

 

I will be submitting my acknowledgement for the N1 today

(although still need to think of what to write for the section of defence)

 

I do believe that as my contract as a resident does not state I need to display a permit, nor have I agreed to display a permit (although I do have one, it fell down in the wind a number of times).

 

UKPC cannot overwrite my contact I believe?

 

Regards,

Rebecca

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I'm sure we can help you, please bear with us until the guys can get here. I'll be back in a minute with something for you to fill in, it will help us to advise you.

 

My best, HB

[honeybee13]

Hello again. I've moved you from the legal section to the specialist private parking one, we know all about UKPC here.

 

Please could you post up the information from the forum stikky for the guys?

 

http://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***(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

HB

[silverfox1961]

Hi

You have already won although you can't see it yet.

Your contact states you are entitled to a space, no mention of a permit therefore, your contract has supremacy over any faux rules UKPC have foisted on the site.

 

Can you upload the LBA and the N1 minus identifying features as I would like to see the wording. Who are the Solicitors?

[Rebecca91]

Name of the Claimant ? UK Parking Control LTD

Date of issue – 17 NOV 2016

What is the claim for –

 

The claimant claims from the Defendant the sum of £320 in respect of unpaid parking notices issued as a result of the Defendants breach of terms and conditions of parking at a site managed by the claimant.

I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

 

What is the value of the claim? £405 total (£320 + 35 + 50)

 

 

Hello all,

 

Thank you for your swift replies, and I thank you for placing this in the correct section of the website for me

 

I have attached the N1 and the LBA in one PDF (See attached)

 

The solicitor is SCS law

 

I hope this answers all questions,

 

Again thank you for reading,

 

(May I ask, do I need to press 'reply' specifically for individuals to see my posts onto here?)

doc1p.pdf

Edited November 20, 2016 by dx100uk
docs reduced to .5Mb from +8Mb - dx

[silverfox1961]

Well the extra £120 (2x£60) cannot be claimed for starters.

 

Your tenancy agreement supersedes anything they try. Once the judge sees your contract, he should dismiss the claim as without merit.

 

Were you living there before UKPC took over car parking or did they start after you had moved in?

Get some nice pictures of the signage and make a note of their placement.

 

You can acknowledge the claim online but don't issue a defence as yet.

[Rebecca91]

Hi silverfox1961,

 

Thank you for clarity

 

I moved in after they had taken over, so they have been here the whole time of my tenancy.

The carpark sign is directly under my car,

so it would be difficult to say the signage is unclear,

although as mentioned there is no sign on the main gate.

 

I shall get on that as soon as I am home (Currently replying from my mobile!)

 

Just to confirm what I said, here is the wording of my contract;

 

"Parking: With use of parking space located Rear of the building"

That is all.

 

The photos of signage I have attached to this reply

 

Many thanks all!

Signage Proof 1.pdf

[silverfox1961]

Firstly, you don't have to press reply first. you can use the quick reply box, type then press 'post quick reply'

 

I take it that you were not issued with a permit therefore you cannot comply. The sign says 'No Authorised Parking', well, your contract states that you are authorised. As your contract made no mention of permits, it makes no difference what their signage says (IMO)

 

Two entrances, one with a sign, one without and it just so happens that you use the non signed entrance.

[Rebecca91]

Thank you for letting me know,

 

I was issued with a permit by the landlord, however I was told 'Best to use it in case they do give you a ticket'. However I did not sign anything for this it was just handed to me (This was given to me after my contract was signed).

I do have a permit however on these occasions it had fallen down (And I have now left it in my last car that I sold a month ago annoyingly!)

 

Yes the other 'entrance' with the UKPC sign on is actually an exit, and it is facing as if you were coming into the car park from the exit. The main entrance has no sign from UKPC (Although there is a small sign which only says 'Parking Permit in operation' but nothing else. It is not a UKPC sign.

 

 

Permits are £10 to UKPC and I believe the previous owner had bought one so it was passed to me, however I have never signed for a permit, I never paid for it, and only signed my contract for this.

 

Its all good news it seems! I did speak with their solicitor who messaged me and he stated that -

 

"Please be advised that the tenancy agreement does not allow you to be parking on site without displaying a valid parking permit at all times. Nonetheless, from the photographic evidence we have taken at the time of the contravention does not show that there was a permit at the time of the breach and on those basis we have pursued this claim further."

 

In one photo, there is the slight corner of my permit on display (It had slipped down the dashboard)

Hence them chasing this particular claim. Interestingly they ignored all of the other tickets that there was no permit on display.

 

Interesting stuff!

 

R

Edited November 20, 2016 by Rebecca91

[ericsbrother]

The permit scheme is an administrative convenience so asking anyone for a tenner for somehting they dontneed or require for their "quiet enjoyment" of their property is a con.

 

So, you, via your tenancy agreement with the leasholder, has a right to park in a designated space.

NO_ONE can take this right away or charge you for it.

UKPC are therefore on to a loser on that point and they know it but will continue to claim otherwise until the last knockings.

 

 

Also their sinage isnt a contrcat offering something, it is prohibition and that means you would then be trespassing by ignoring it. Well, you cannot trespass on your own property so that means by slapping a ticket on your car THEY are trespassing and this continued attemopt at extorting money is harassment.

 

peopel have sued UKPC for harassment and won over this very thing so look through th old posting here from about a year and a but ago and you will find the details of someone who got them at Winchester county court.

 

Ofetr you have acknowledged the service of the claim you should oput in a skeleton defence of supremacy of contract, no locus standi by UKPC and no breach of contract. The details will be added when you hhave a date for exchanging evidence documents so miles away.

 

Stop speaking to UKPC or their solicitor, they have now changed their story as to why you are being sued because you did that.

They have turned a 100% chance of them losing into a slight chance of getting somewhere.

 

 

the lawyers at SCS have been disciplined by the SRA previously so they arent paragons of virtue and will not tell their clients to discontinue just becasue they dont have a case.

SCS make money otu of this even if UPKC get taken to the cleaners.

 

ackonwledge the service on time, get the defence bullet points in on time and send a CPR 31.14 request to SCS demanding to see the contract between UKPC and the landowner

[Rebecca91]

Hi ericsbrother, thanks for your reply

 

I followed the advice from parking prankster for a few things to send the solicitor and ukpc, from then on I had not contacted atall which is good.

 

May I ask about the skeleton defence? (this is obviously quite overwhelming a lot of the terminology and things needed to be done) - or a pointer in the direction for where to go for a rough draft of the skeleton draft.

 

I have acknowledgeded the case online, and tomorrow first thing will send of my request for the contract between ukpc.

 

An interesting point on the sign not being a contract, thank you for that observation

 

Again all, thank you so much for your help so far!

 

R

[Rebecca91]

Morning all, just following my previous post, may I ask if this seems ok to send for my receiving of documents?

 

Regards all!

 

 

UK Parking Control LTD

Unit 29, 1-2 Denham Parade

Oxford Road

Uxbridge

Middlesex

UB9 4DZ

 

Dear M************

 

Claim Number: ********

 

Request for documents mentioned in a statement of case under CPR 31.14

 

On **/11/2016 I received a County Court claim from yourselves of which I have acknowledged receipt indicating my intention to defend in full.

 

To enable me to file my defence and/or counterclaim, I require inspection of documents you mention in your statements of case ahead of filing my defence.

 

1. Agreement / Contact between yourselves (UKPC and the management of *******)

2. All copies of paperwork that have been sent to my address

3. Your statement of case

4. All Formal Demand paperwork

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect.

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the documents I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.

 

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing and confirm your agreement to an extension of the time allowed for me to file my defense as allowed under CPR 15.5 so I may notify the court.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

[ericsbrother]

NO, you ask for sight of the contract between them and the LANDOWNER.

Any contract between them and a third party isnt worth a light so if you ask for it you make it clear that you are ignorant of contract law and what you expect.

 

If you get a copy of a contract between themm and some managing agent you can dave the claim thrown out for lack of standing. Also ask for proof of planningh permission for their signage under the Toen and Country Planning Act 2007

 

You have to read more about all of thsi before putting pen to paper, do not use points 2, 3 or 4.

Their failure to supply these in the correct time will lose them any right to claim so dont help them rob you.

 

also, drop the line starting "on **/11/16," and the line after it saying "to enable".....the request for documents under CPR31 is all you need to say, this is a foraml matter so dont use flowery or even polite language.

 

 

You send it to SCS and not the parking co so change the address accordingly

[Rebecca91]

Hi ericsbrother - Thank you so much, really useful advice.

 

May I ask if this seems more adequate for a letter -

Thank you again in advance for your time

 

R x

 

 

 

 

SCS Law

(Address)

 

Dear M************

 

Claim Number: ********

 

Request for documents mentioned in a statement of case under CPR 31.14

 

To enable me to file my defence and/or counterclaim, I require inspection of documents you mention in your statements of case ahead of filing my defense.

 

1. Sight of contract between UKPC and the Landowner of *******

2. Proof of planning permission to erect signs within the car-park under Toen and Country Planning Act 2007

 

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect.

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the documents I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.

 

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing and confirm your agreement to an extension of the time allowed for me to file my defense as allowed under CPR 15.5 so I may notify the court.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

[ericsbrother]

NO NO NO

lose the line "to enable me to file......"

 

the exact wording of your request should be

1/sight of contract between your client and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the occupants of XXXXXXXXX(name of development) and to make civil claims in their own name

 

2/sight of planning permission granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 for the signage at the site relied on to create contractual conditions.

 

the carry on with the CPR 31.15 as you have and end it by saying A resposne is required within 14 days ( and then drop the line about a time extension). Yours faithfully,

 

dont say I look forward to heairng from you, they are not your auntie

[Rebecca91]

Thank you for clarification ericsbrohter,

 

Hopfully this will nail it!

 

 

 

 

SCS Law

(Address)

 

Dear M************

 

Claim Number: ********

 

Request for documents mentioned in a statement of case under CPR 31.14

 

 

 

1. Sight of contract between your client and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the occupants of (site) and to make civil claims in their own name

2. Sight of planning permission granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 for the signage at the site relied on to create contractual conditions.

 

 

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect.

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the documents I have requested are received.

A resposne is required within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully,

[ericsbrother]

that will do.

 

The idea is that you never say anything that can be misused so allowing for an extension of the time will just mean that they dont respond until about a day before the hearing and then tell a judge that they complied with the request.

 

Courts replace trial by combat so consider, would you be polite to someone who was trying to kill you with a sword?.

That is why opposing parties use lawyers, they replaced mercenary swordsmen and like with the swordsman, the person with the most expensive lawyer usually has an advantage regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, it is just that those who are right fight harder and judges were supposed to recognise this and stop the fight.

 

 

When was trial by combat abandoned?

you may be surprised but it hasnt been.

History lesson over

[Rebecca91]

Thats a very good little lesson there, I didnt really see court in that way before this all started!

 

Thank you so much for your help in the letter, small things like that are obviously incredibly improtant!

 

 

General timescale here, am I right in thinking I now have around 28 days to file a full defense, and then I will be asked possible dates to attend court to fight?

 

Obviously this is all completely new to me.

 

Many thanks,

 

R

[ericsbrother]

Once the acknowledgement of service is in you have another fortnight to submit a skeleton defence (+ 2 days for post). This only need s to be as it says, bullet points about what your defence will be.

 

Now, if you have got the CPR31.14 off in time then they will run out of time to respond before you submit this and you can then add that they have failed to show locus standi or a cause for action by way of the CPR 31 request and ask that the claim be struck out on that basis. 9probably wont happen but you never know, they may well be told to show their evidence as a case managemtn order and that will save you a lot of effort later.

 

So, keep an eye on the clock but make sure you sumbit a defence in time or you may be on the receiving end of such a request for judgement

 

Bullet popints being you have supremacy of contract, no locus standi by claimant, no contract entered into, no breach of contract and signage prohibitive, not contractual.

 

you will expect to expand on all of this nearer the time, you will be instructed by the court as to when this is bundled up as your evidence pack. Before then, they will have to pay an allocation fee and you will get a directions questionnaire. simple fo fill in, just a tick box exercise where you say no to mediation and tell the courts service of any known holidays, jury service etc.

Edited November 22, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Rebecca91]

Thank you so much for your help and guidance. I have begun to draw up a defense to put out, will keep you all updated!

[Rebecca91]

Hi all, I have written a defense, and if possible wondering if someone would be able to just skim read and say if to remove anything?

 

Much appreciated in advanced!

This is only my skeleton defense at this stage, although I have written out defense ready for nearer the time.

 

Also on a side note, UKPC and the solicitors have failed to send over information asked for within 7 days stated in my Request for Documents CPR 31.14.

 

1-The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX at the location set about in the claim.

 

2-The defendant has not admitted they were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the charges

 

2 i)The defendant has no liability as they are were the keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFa to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the drier and nor is a 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 barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ set out in schedule 4.

 

3-The claimant has no standing to bring a case

 

4-The claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant

 

5-The Defendant has never had any obligation to comply with any sign placed by the claimant

 

6-Even if a contract had been formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations

 

7-In relation to each of the paragraphs contained within the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant comments are as follows;

 

-In relation to Paragraph 1, while the Defendant accepts the Claimant is a parking management company, they are put to strict proof that they have the authority to manage the parking at the locations stated. The Defendant requests a non-redacted copy of the contract giving them the authority to manage parking at the location. This evidence is required as the Claimant has not explained what authority it has to bring the claim.

 

Parkingeye 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. Parking v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgement persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEve v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings.

 

 

8-Regarding paragraph 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits they were at the time the registered keeper of the vehicle and requests that the Claimant provide evidence to substantiate this claim for both charges, not just one.

 

 

9-Regarding paragraph 4, the claimant is put to strict proof that all of their signs comply with the British Parking Association's terms and conditions. Signage locations and layout of signs at the time are needed as stated in the BPAs signage to form a contract.

-Further to paragraph 4 (4.1 and 4.2), strict proof is needed to demonstrate that the Defendant was ‘the driver’ on both occations. The charges state that the driver has breached the terms of the agreement.

 

 

10-Regarding paragraph 6, the Claimant has not explained what loss and/or damages they have incurred and are put to strict proof of any actual loss and/or damages. Furthermore, as the space in question is a private parking spot for my private vehicle as stated in my tenancy agreement (With no mention of a parking permit needed), I would like proof of the loss/damages incurred by me parking in my private space. Furthermore, given that the Claimant does not own the land, they have not incurred any damages.

 

 

11-Further or alternatively, even if the Claimant could offer a contract, the Defendant disputes that any sign constituted and offer and submits that it clearly threatened punitive sanctions. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188: Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal that was decided by Mr Recorder Gibson QC (21 February 2014)

 

 

12-The Defendant also refers the court to the tests suggested by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Type v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd, and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. The Defendant also refers the court to decisions involving similar facts to the present case.

O.B Services v Thurlow (Worcester County Court 2011)

Excel Parking Serveices v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008)

 

 

13-The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has ignored the Government’s clear intention as expressed in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:

 

“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.

 

For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver”

 

 

The judgement in VCS v lbbotson (2012) makes it clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versichering AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not a resident parking in their own designated space. The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people. Far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments.

 

 

14-The Defendant has a tenancy agreement that does not mention a parking permit needed. Wording in the agreement states that I have a parking space with my flat while living there. UKPC are put to strict proof that they can override my contract.

 

 

15-The management company who have employed UKPC to monitor the carpark have told UKPC to remove all charges which has been refused. UKPC are put to strict proof they are able to override instructions such as these from a management company.

The Defendant sent a request for information under ‘Request for documents under CPR 31.14’ to XXXX Solicitors and UKPCs point of contact outlined in the Letter before action. The Defendant gave a seven (7) day time limit to reply. No reply has been received and it has now been more than 7 days.

 

 

16-The defendant denies the claim for £XXXX and costs.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rebecca91

[ericsbrother]

all too detailed at this point,

you may be limiting your defence to just these matters if you go into such detail at this stage.

keep it broad so you can add more meat to your skeleton arguments later

 

I would drop point 7 and all of the follwing details,

you will need them later but not yet. also one or two of them may not be relevant and that will cause you propblems with the quality of your other points not being givent the merit they deserve.

to this end shorten point 2 to just the subsection (1).

 

Good that you have got some ammuntion for use later though. you will need to show right to park ect through the lease, not just your tenancy. If your LL not helpful then go to land registry and look for restrictions

[Rebecca91]

Hi Ericsbrither, thank you so much for your input.

I have drawn together your points which are as follows; if possible would you be able to skim read and let me know if you feel this would be acceptable to post today?

 

It should be noted UKPC and SCS failed to send details I requested in the 7 day timeframe under CPR 31.14 which is good news for me! Possibly the case could be dropped on these points?

 

Many thanks,

R

 

1. The Defendant has a tenancy agreement that allows parking. Subsequent terms cannot override the lease. This allowed the Defendant the right to quiet enjoyment of the property and an unfettered right to park with no mention of parking limitations of restrictions.

 

2. The Defendant has a tenancy agreement that does not mention a parking permit needed. Wording in the agreement states that I have a parking space with my flat while living there. UKPC are put to strict proof that they can override my contract.

 

3. The management company have requested removal of all charges from UKPC. UKPC are put to strict proof they are able to ignore or override requests from the management company to remove such parking charges. Proof of this is available from email.

 

4. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX at the location set about in the claim.

 

5. The defendant has not admitted they were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the charges. Strict proof is needed that the Defendant was the driver as stated on the charges.

 

6. The claimant has no standing to bring a case

 

7. The claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant

 

8. The Defendant has never had any obligation to comply with any sign placed by the claimant

 

9. Even if a contract had been formed, it would be void as in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

 

10. Regarding paragraph 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits they were at the time the registered keeper of the vehicle and requests that the Claimant provide evidence to substantiate this claim for both charges, not just one

 

11. Regarding paragraph 4, the claimant is put to strict proof that all of their signs comply with the British Parking Association's terms and conditions. Signage locations and layout of signs at the time are needed as stated in the BPAs signage to form a contract.

Further to paragraph 4 (4.1 and 4.2), strict proof is needed to demonstrate that the Defendant was ‘the driver’. The charges state that the driver has breached the terms of the agreement.

 

12. Regarding paragraph 6, the Claimant has not explained what loss and/or damages they have incurred and are put to strict proof of any actual loss and/or damages. Furthermore, as the space in question is a private parking spot for my private vehicle as stated in my tenancy agreement (With no mention of a parking permit needed), I would like proof of the loss/damages incurred by me parking in my private space. Furthermore, given that the Claimant does not own the land, they have not incurred any damages.

 

13. Further or alternatively, even if the Claimant could offer a contract, the Defendant disputes that any sign constituted and offer and submits that it clearly threatened punitive sanctions. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188: Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal that was decided by Mr Recorder Gibson QC (21 February 2014)

 

14. The Defendant also refers the court to the tests suggested by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Type v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd, and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. The Defendant also refers the court to decisions involving similar facts to the present case.

O.B Services v Thurlow (Worcester County Court 2011)

Excel Parking Serveices v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008)

 

15. The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has ignored the Government’s clear intention as expressed in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:

 

“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.

 

For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver”

 

The judgement in VCS v lbbotson (2012) makes it clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versichering AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not a resident parking in their own designated space.

 

 

The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people. Far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments.

 

16. The Defendant sent a request for information under ‘Request for documents under CPR 31.14’ to SCS Solicitors and UKPCs point of contact outlined in the Letter before action. The Defendant gave a seven (7) day time limit to reply. No reply has been received and it has now been more than 7 days.

 

17. The defendant denies the claim for £320 and costs.

[ericsbrother]

no, just points 1-9 removing point 4 as it will be in your witness statement and change the order to 6,1,2,3.8,7,5,9 that way each point flows to the next should for some reason the prior point is not accepted.

as said, skeleton points only,

You have already ticked the box saying you intend to defend in full so last point not necessary either.

[Rebecca91]

Hi Ericsbrother, I hope you dont me asking - (Or anyone else free for a response)

 

I have signed off the defense (Thank you so much for your help!)

I managed to get hold of the registry title documents, which shows in the layout that the parking space is included (and no mention of a permit)

 

There are the following though -

 

 

"2 (26.10.2007) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s))

under which the land is held:

Date : XXXXXr 2007

Term : 125 years from XXXXXX 2006

Parties : (1) CellXXXXXXn Limited

(2) XXXX XXXXX Management Limited

(3) SXXXX XXXXX and SXXXX XXXX

 

 

 

3 (26.10.2007) There are excepted from the effect of registration all

estates, rights, interests, powers and remedies arising upon, or by

reason of, any dealing made in breach of the prohibition or restriction

against dealings therewith inter vivos contained in the Lease.

 

4 (26.10.2007) The title includes any legal easements referred to in

clause LR11.1 of the registered lease but is subject to any rights that

are granted or reserved by the lease and affect the registered land.

 

5 (26.10.2007) The landlord's title is registered."

 

 

My question is, as the owner of the flat is not the only one on the lease here (The management agency are also - they come under 2 separate names in this as sub points 1 and 2) does that mean they could argue they have ensured a permit is in place, or as its not in the tenancy or lease, then it doesn't matter?

 

 

Regards!