DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22515--------------------------------------------------
PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises that
is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: ElsL
Date: May 15, 2024, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
The case had gone through 2 appeals that had been denied. The
small claims proceedings have been initiated and now a defence
response are expected.
The r/k had been issued with a notice of parking and not
displaying a ticket on a leasehold parking space, owned by the
partner, which holds an interest in the vehicle.
On the date of 11th of JULY 2023 vehicle was issued with a
Parking Charge Notice for not displaying a permit, whilst parked
in a designated space. The enforcement officer was seen to issue
a ticket in early morning and was informed in person and shown a
permit. However, that was ignored and notice still issued.
The deed clause does contain a clause about permits being shown
issued by the management company or the landlord.
However, nowhere in the deed does not seem the state anything
about parking enforcement or any notices in alteration to the
deed in regards to parking enforcement.
link to images to PCN, signage, clauses from the deed
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XO7stiHm2cmuN7Nwdu_b7q06XHVQkdIG?usp=drive_link
Is there a defence I can rely on in this case, or am I in a
situtation where I would have to accept that there is nothing I
can do and pay up to the predatory private parking company for
parking vehicle in our own private parking space?
#Post#: 22557--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2024, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no suggestion that I can see that, aside from
displaying a permit supplied by the landlord, that you are
liable to a charge from a third party not connected to the
lease.
What is the date of issue of the claim form (N1SDT)? Have you
submitted the AoS? If so, on what date? Your MCOL history will
tell you.
Please show us the PoC. That is what you are responding to and
they are almost always woefully inadequate and there may be
something you can add to your defence that could get the case
thrown out at allocation stage.
Which roboclaim solicitor are NPC using or have they filed the
claim themselves?
Once you have answered the above questions, we can advise
further and provide a template for your defence. Whatever you
do, DO NOT file your defence using the MCOL portal. You will
file your defence as a PDF attachment in an email to the CNBC.
Edited to add: The NtK you have shown in your Google Docs folder
has your VRM and the PCN number showing. I have managed to use
that info to log into the NPC website as though to appeal and I
can see a document on their website that contains you name and
your email address. I suggest you immediately redact the photo
of the NtK to remove the VRM and PCN numbers as anyone will ill
intent could cause your grief.
#Post#: 22558--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: manila
Date: May 15, 2024, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
(NAL)
I think there may be a problem here. The lease gives permission
from the landlord to park only if a permit is displayed.
Arguably, if a permit wasn't displayed, then the driver wasn't
parking with the permission of the landlord, and thus might be
deemed to be trespassing. At which point a good case could be
made that in this specific case, if there are prominent signs,
then the act of parking is an indication of acceptance of the
contract (if any) offered by the signs.
#Post#: 22561--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2024, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find that the CRA 2015 more than covers any
ambiguity over that in the unfair terms in a contract section.
You also have the right to quiet enjoyment without unnecessary
interference from the landlord. This includes the right to
privacy and freedom from harassment.
You could easily argue that you have been assigned a parking
space. Whilst the lease says you should display a permit issued
by the landlord or their management company, it can be argued
that by allowing a third party to fetter that right by issuing
the tenant with an invoice for £100, is unnecessary interference
as it can easily be shown that the tenant has a right to park
there anyway.
A third party (not referenced in the lease) does not have legal
standing to take the tenant to court directly. From what we've
seen, only the landlord can do that if they are inclined to do
so to their tenant.
#Post#: 22564--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not
DIR By: ElsL
Date: May 15, 2024, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> There is no suggestion that I can see that, aside from
displaying a permit supplied by the landlord, that you are
liable to a charge from a third party not connected to the
lease.
>
> What is the date of issue of the claim form (N1SDT)? Have you
submitted the AoS? If so, on what date? Your MCOL history will
tell you.
>
> Please show us the PoC. That is what you are responding to and
they are almost always woefully inadequate and there may be
something you can add to your defence that could get the case
thrown out at allocation stage.
>
> Which roboclaim solicitor are NPC using or have they filed the
claim themselves?
>
> Once you have answered the above questions, we can advise
further and provide a template for your defence. Whatever you
do, DO NOT file your defence using the MCOL portal. You will
file your defence as a PDF attachment in an email to the CNBC.
>
> Edited to add: The NtK you have shown in your Google Docs
folder has your VRM and the PCN number showing. I have managed
to use that info to log into the NPC website as though to appeal
and I can see a document on their website that contains you name
and your email address. I suggest you immediately redact the
photo of the NtK to remove the VRM and PCN numbers as anyone
will ill intent could cause your grief.
>
--- End Quote ---
N1SDT issued on the 03/05/2024, I have not submitted any
response to it as of yet.
I have added the pictures of the DCBL contact letter and
Independent appeal service denial outcome reasoning.
They are using DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs LTD)
For whatever reason I am unable to find the claim on MCOL as it
is saying the number is invalid. Edit: Figured it out the only
communication is: A claim was issued against you on 03/05/2024.
#Post#: 22567--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2024, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 3rd May, you have until 4pm on Wednesday
22nd May to submit the AoS. There is no advantage to delaying
that. As long as you file the AoS on or before that date, you
would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June to file your
defence.
You should use the MCOL portal to file the AoS. However, DO NOT
use it to file your defence. Your defence will be submitted as a
PDF attachment to an email.
You should ignore anything from DCBL. They are a useless debt
collector and not a party the contract you allegedly breached
with NPC. We don't need to see those and you can safely use them
as kindling.
Did you receive an LoC from DCB Legal before the claim was
issued? Why have you not show us that together with any response
you made to that?
You have also been asked to show us the PoC. You can show the
N1SDT form with just the your personal details, the claim
number, your VRM and the PCN number redacted.
One positive point is the fact that the claim has probably been
filed by DCB Legal. As long as you follow the advice and submit
the robust defence that will be provided and the subsequent
steps, I will place money on the claim being discontinued before
it gets to a hearing.
Thank you for redacting the PCN and VRM on the NtK.
#Post#: 22573--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not
DIR By: ElsL
Date: May 15, 2024, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 3rd May, you have until 4pm on Wednesday
22nd May to submit the AoS. There is no advantage to delaying
that. As long as you file the AoS on or before that date, you
would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June to file your
defence.
>
> You should use the MCOL portal to file the AoS. However, DO
NOT use it to file your defence. Your defence will be submitted
as a PDF attachment to an email.
>
> You should ignore anything from DCBL. They are a useless debt
collector and not a party the contract you allegedly breached
with NPC. We don't need to see those and you can safely use them
as kindling.
>
> Did you receive an LoC from DCB Legal before the claim was
issued? Why have you not show us that together with any response
you made to that?
>
> You have also been asked to show us the PoC. You can show the
N1SDT form with just the your personal details, the claim
number, your VRM and the PCN number redacted.
>
> One positive point is the fact that the claim has probably
been filed by DCB Legal. As long as you follow the advice and
submit the robust defence that will be provided and the
subsequent steps, I will place money on the claim being
discontinued before it gets to a hearing.
>
> Thank you for redacting the PCN and VRM on the NtK.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will complete the AoS immediately. Furthermore, upon reading
through the PoC I have noticed that the post code that they have
provided is not the exact location for where the alleged breach
has taken place, unless they are reffering to the whole building
complex as a whole.
It is DCB LEGAL making the claim.
"Did you receive an LoC from DCB Legal before the claim was
issued? Why have you not show us that together with any response
you made to that?"
They sent me some letters, but they were copies of the same I
have attached, I believe the total was 4, but after the first
one I disposed of the rest. Never made any response to them.
I have attached PoC to the google file.
#Post#: 22577--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2024, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, your defence is responding to the allegation in the PoC.
There is no need to elaborate on anything at this stage as all
you need to do is confirm that you were also the driver (The NtK
was mostly PoFA compliant) and that the vehicle was at the
location in accordance with the defendants right to park there
under the terms of their lease.
Just edit para #2 and add your bit in #3 and show them to us
(not the whole defence although you will be using all of it):
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=ldvazkhh&dl=0
The Statement of Truth can just be signed by typing your full
name. There is no requirement to physically sign it or add a
photo of your signature.
The final version should be saved/exported in PDF format.
#Post#: 22581--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: ElsL
Date: May 15, 2024, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The defendant resides at the building complex with the
leaseholder of the car park space. The defendant had not
displayed the permit in the windscreen by mistake as returned
home after an extended shift at work and due to sheer physical
tiredness had failed to place it on the dash of the vehicle,
even though the permit was held in the vehicle. The defendant
and the leaseholder have mutual interest in the vehicle and sole
users of the space. On the day of the issue of the fine the
keeper of the vehicle saw the agent issue the ticket by taking
the pictures of the vehicle, where it was confirmed to the agent
in person that the vehicle is allowed to be parked at the
location by showing the permit. However, the proof in person was
denied with the only advice given by the agent in words of
effect “GO SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THEY WILL REMOVE
THE TICKET”. The vehicle is registered to the same address as
the car park space is owned. In result, it would have been
easily cross checked by the NPC LTD that the vehicle had the
rights of the use of the space prior to commencing any further
proceedings. Upon these points being raised to NPC LTD they
decided that those points were insufficient. Furthermore, the
PCN was issued in a residential site where the leaseholder of
the space has the deed for the parking space 3.59 as allocated
by the Landlord as per the deed First Schedule paragraph 9 “The
(exclusive) right to park one private motor vehicle in the
parking areas in such parking space as the landlord may from
time to time designate and notify the Tenant in writing subject
to the display of a current valid parking permit issued by the
Landlord or the Management Company AND the Landlord hereby
notifies the Tenant that the initial parking space shall be the
Initial Parking Space herein before defined.” The deed also sets
out the right of Quiet Enjoyment - peaceably hold and enjoy the
Premises during the term without any lawful interruption by the
Landlord or any person lawfully or in trust for the Landlord.
Furthermore, the signage at the car park is above every second
space and not directly above the space in question. As a
defendant does not know the deed agreements of other users can
be easily interpreted that above the spaces where the signage
positioned are under different agreement than the space in
question.
The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and
that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as
proving a term was breached, there must be:
a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere
compensation for loss, and
'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the
case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines
This is what I have compiled together. Please advise if you
believe any edition should be changed.
#Post#: 22582--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN National Parking Control, parking in private premises
that is owned by the leaseholder, not displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2024, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You do not need to write War and Peace in your defence. You will
do all that elaboration later in your WS, if it ever gets that
far.
No one likes to read a wall of text like that. If you have to
split it into readable paragraphs, do so. Just remember to
renumber all the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
You may just want to answer the PoC and say that you have a
right under the lease to park the vehicle, which is registered
to that location. The permit was in the vehicle at all times and
you showed it to an operative from the unregulated private
parking company.
I don't think anything in that sentence is factually incorrect.
All the rest is already covered in the template defence and, as
already mentioned, can be elaborated on in your WS.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page