ES / Gladstones claim Urgent initial view needed

Here is link to the no parking/stopping sign from ES:
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/1z216qq/9

This is the claim form (redacted)
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/34hyuxh/9

Ok Coupon_Mad, after much reading and cribbing - thank you to all previous posters, here is the defence - any other words of wisdom, improvements or critique would be most welcome......

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5) As an unrepresented consumer I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

6) This claim merely states: “parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxx" with an unsubstantiated claim of "£150 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not adequately describe the basis on which the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable'.

7) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

11) The alleged debt as vaguely described in the claim amounts to unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

12. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. It was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

13) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake(1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

14) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. Furthermore, as in the case PCM v Bull there is no evidence to support additional costs having been incurred by the claimant. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

15) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

16) Should the claim be for breach of contract, and it remains unclear on this point, then the defendant denies there is or was any contract implied or otherwise. As in the case PCM v Bull, the signs at the location are forbidding and serve as a notice of absolute prohibition against parking at any time and cannot constitute a contract.

17) Should the claim be for trespass, and it remains unclear on this point, there is no evidence to support that the claimant has any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.

18) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

19) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

19. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, no keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4.

Thanks NorthWestIT. Had a look at them and of course every one is slightly different and to some extent may depend on the judge's view of related cases.
Sadly I am right up against it as it is on behalf of my son who works abroad so it was only at the 11th hour I got involved and have never given any of the legal process much thought. I met the AoS deadline at the last moment and then got tied up with my own job so this is all last minute - the deadline is tomorrow for the defence so as long as it is coherent and catches the main arguments around no actual contract and vague PoC then I can get something in. Will need to then do some research on land registry, DVLA request etc and ask ES for a bunch of details.

I thought I would share with you the result of making a defence and not being bullied into paying an "invoice" from one of these parking companies.
Having written the defence and met the timescales of the court process I received the witness statement from Gladstones with a few photos etc and a copy of the ES contract with the landowner. I thought OK, we will have to attend the court.
The following day to my delight I received a single page from the court stating.......they had not paid the court fee and the case had been struck out! We could even claim costs too!!
That has made my day and demonstrates that they are robo-claims and that there is not a professional set-up dealing with these things.
Anyway thanks to all who replied and all who have previously contributed on the forum. This is a very helpful facility.