Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

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?

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you. I got to digging through the piles of paperwork and have found the Letter of Claim if that changes anything.

Letter of Claim

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest
belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse
statement of case. The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach
allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the
Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
2. The defendant has a right under the lease to park the vehicle at the designated space,
which is registered to that location as the same as the vehicle. The permit was in the
vehicle at all times and the defendant had shown it to an operative from the
unregulated private parking company at the time of issuing the fine.However, the
evidence provided in person was refused and words of effect was said by the
operative “GO TO YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THEY WILL REMOVE THE
TICKET” Which was unsuccessful as the management company refused to be
involved in any of the dealings between the defendant and claimant.
3. The signage is not fully clear at the car park as it is above every second space and not
directly above the parking space in question. As a defendant does not know the lease
agreements of other users the signage can be easily interpreted that above the spaces
where the signage positioned are under different agreement than the space involved in
the dispute. Furthermore, there are no signs displayed at the entrance of the car park,
only occasionally space along every second parking space.

We need to see the lease pl, just obscure personal info.

A lease is a contract which takes a prescribed form as regards formalities and content. Headings will include Amendment, Breaches and Dispute Resolution.

While the technicalities of the court process are important and must be managed, there's no point getting to court naked as regards a substantive defence.

Pl get back to the lease because this is where the evidence starts. Pl do not summarise or interpret clauses, show them.