Gladstones - Court Claim Form & defence

Ah - I think I have seen that example: it was in one of the blogs (poss Prankster) and also referred in one of the Industry Bodies' ToR, I think. I'll go back and dig some more......
Thanks again btw :-)

Thank you LoC123.
Latest iteration of defence statement below. Still trying to establish whether the signs have (or need) planning permission - Council's website is full of detail, but confusing! I hope I've clarified the chronology of letters etc now - its almost reads like I'm making the same point more than once, but it seems to relate to a slightly different thing that they did (or didn't do)......


(BEGINS)
1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information made on [x date].

(b) The Defendant did not receive any letter requesting payment from the Claimant. No copy letter was received, either, from the Claimant’s legal representative, despite informing them (Claimant’s legal representative) that no original letter had been received.

(c) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The first-received covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with insufficient contravention details, nor any photographs.

(d) The Claimant’s did not receive any letter from the Claimant regarding any parking issue. The first communication received by the defendant was an incorrect Letter Before Claim from the Claimant’s legal representative, Gladstones Solicitors, demanding payment concerning a vehicle not owned by or known to the Defendant. The Defendant did not act as this was clearly a mistake and not related to him. The Claimant’s legal representative then sent another non-compliant Letter Before Claim, demanding payment relating to the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant wrote to the Claimant’s legal representative, telling them that he had not received any previous communication from the Claimant, and that the only letter he had received prior to the non-compliant Letter Before Claim was concerning another vehicle XXXXXX not know to him, and asked for further information as to why the Legal Representative was pursuing him. The Claimant failed to acknowledge its mistake despite the defendant seeking further information in writing.

The Defendant then received a brief, unattributed letter from the Claimant’s legal representative stating that ‘the charge was issued on 1 September 2016 to vehicle XXXXXXX for unauthorised parking as you were parked without a valid permit’ and enclosing photographs purporting to show the vehicle in an unidentified place for a 3 minute period.

The defendant wrote back to the Claimant’s legal representative on XXXXXX reiterating that he had received no correspondence from the Claimant and detailing, once more, the correspondence trail and chronology. The Defendant requested the full name and address of the client in addition to details of how and why the parking claim was being made, and also how the amount demanded was calculated. No response was received.

2/ The Claim form particulars are extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail for the Defendant to understand the claim being brought.
The Defendant has little idea what the claim is about - how the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. This is in direct breach of CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2 and, if a contract is relied upon, the absence of the contractual terms is a breach of Practice Direction 16 para 7.3.
The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on xxxx prior to proceedings being issued, asking them to provide further and appropriate details of the Claim, in compliance with these Rules, and the Claimant ignored that letter in complete defiance of its obligations pursuant to paragraphs 6(a), 6(c) and 12 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.

3/ The Defendant never received any Notice to Keeper from the Claimant.
The first communication the Defendant received was a letter dated XXXX from the Claimant’s solicitor, purporting to be a Letter Before Claim. The Defendant immediately wrote to the Claimant’s legal representative explaining that no letter had been received but received no detail regarding the Claimant’s alleged original Notice to Keeper. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant Notice to Keeper 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, this Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA.

4/ If the Claim is for a breach of contract (which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) The Defendant denies that any contract was formed because there is an absence of offer, acceptance and consideration, as set out below.

5/ The driver did not "park” and cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms offered.
The Defendant denies that he parked according to the commonly understood meaning of that word and according to common understanding within POFA; the driver merely drove into the site when he had lost his way, checked where he was and then left (the car was present on the site for only 3 minutes according to the time of alleged parking recorded by the Claimant). For any contract to have been formed, the driver must have been made aware of the terms and must have been given the opportunity to consider whether or not to accept them. A 3 minute presence on the site clearly indicates that the driver cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms that were offered by the Claimant (if any were in fact offered, which is denied).

5/ The Claimant's signage was not capable of making an offer, and did not make any offer, which was capable of being accepted. The Defendant relies on the following:

(a) Inadequate site/entrance signage - the wording on the signs did not make any clear offer. In the alternative, to the extent that any offer was made, the signage was displayed in such a way that any terms were not brought to the driver's attention - in breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the IPC compulsory ATA Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is a member, and no contract was formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or clearly legible;
(c) Any contract which may have been formed (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) is void because its terms are unfair as they were contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time),
(d) No terms were agreed by the driver
(e) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(f) Sum pursued exceeds £100 and is therefore an unrecoverable penalty.
(g) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no contract of which the Defendant can have breached.

6/ The Claimant has no legal standing to bring this claim.
It is unclear whether UK Parking Management & Enforcement hold a legitimate contract with the landowner to manage the parking and to issue and pursue payment of charges at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7/ If, on the other hand, the claim arises from a trespass (again, which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) then a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8/ The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any further payment.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a)Issued an erroneous claim to the defendant regarding an unknown vehicle, rendering their administration questionable

(b) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated xxxxxxx requesting further information and details of the claim and subsequently a second letter dated xxxxxxxxxxxx

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action.

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success under CPR Rule 3.4 using its inherent case management powers under Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

It is believed the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

In support of these arguments, the defendant has provided the specific correspondence between him and Gladstones Solicitors in chronological order (five items of correspondence). Also supplied is a sample photograph of the signs which are placed occasionally around the site.

Because the Particulars of Claim are so sparse (a breach of inter alia CPR Rule 16.4) it is difficult for the Defendant (a litigant in person) to file a proper defence. For the avoidance of doubt, should this matter proceed then the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claim. He must also, given the lack of particularisation of the claim, reserve the right to raise further points in his defence, should the Claimant further particularise its claim (for instance, in any witness evidence).

(ENDS)