Current (TODAY!) Court Defence: PCM / Gladstones

My initial Defence draft below. All to be sent registered post and presented in Times New Roman, size 12 with 1.5 line spacing, as advised by bargepole (Many Thanks!).
This is the defence for the first case (dated 31st January and correctly addressed/named):
>
>
>
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. XXXXX
BETWEEN:
PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED Claimant
AND
XXXXX Defendant

DEFENCE

Introduction
1. I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is XXXXX
2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
3. The claim states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This information has been formally requested but not supplied by the claimant’s representative (Gladstones Solicitors). Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person 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.
4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the keeper/hirer of a XXXXX, registered number XXXXX. The registered keeper is XXXXX (i.e. the leasing company). I can neither confirm nor deny who was driving on the day as it is some time since the event.
5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at Whittle Square - Gloucester on 31/1/2017.

Purported Basis of Claim
6. Further, based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and “robo-claim” correspondence, it appears to be the claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on 31/1/2017.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions clearly and prominently displayed around the site.
d. That there is clear and prominent signage on entry to the Whittle Square Leisure & Retail Park to signify the change of road and parking regulations, from those detailed in The Highways Act (1980).
e. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
g. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
h. That the claimant and/or representatives (Gladstones Solicitors Limited) have responded to all reasonable requests for support information as part of this claim and alleged offence.
i. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.

Rebuttal of Claim
7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed.
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. There were Terms and Conditions clearly and prominently displayed around the site.
d. There is any signage on entry to the Whittle Park Leisure & Retail Park to denote any change of road and parking regulations, from those detailed in The Highways Act
(1980)
e. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and
unspecified additional sums.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
g. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International
Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
h. That the claimant and/or representatives (Gladstones Solicitors Limited) have
responded to all reasonable requests for support information as part of this claim and
alleged offence.
i. That I am liable for the purported debt.

8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.
9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.

My Defence
My defence will rely principally upon the following points:
10. That the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

11. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
12. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code
13. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contract and which met the specifications above.
14. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
The Claimant, and their legal representatives, have failed to supply the Defendant with evidence of such authority even upon the Defendant’s written request. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.
The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
15. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a “free parking” setting, any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore not be established or at worst would be minimal and de-minimis.
16. That the original amount demanded through speculative invoicing is excessive and unconscionable.
17. Further, the Claimant and their legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £240.72. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.
18. In the alternative, the attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper, where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).
19. In view of all the foregoing The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim out of its own motion, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
20. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true

Signed ______________________
Dated 12-09-2017

beamerguy wrote: »

PCM ... read up about Gladstones in the parking pranksters
blog so you can understand what to expect ... not very good.

I'm going to get stuck into this in more detail this evening and in the coming weeks, under the assumption this will get to court.
Thanks

Thanks.
Do you consider the initial defense I have posted to be sufficient at this stage? (bearing in mind I will be posting the two versions tomorrow to ensure they arrive by Friday)

Out of interest, I would welcome any advice on the inclusion of this opening point in my second defence.
As stated above, 2 claims are issued 1 issued to me correctly, while the other has the name mixed up.
Assuming my name is Wilson James, one is correctly addressed to W James, while the other (and all previous correspondence) is incorrectly addressed to J Wilson.
As such I have included the following opening (with the names changed accordingly), if nothing else but to highlight the incompetence of Gladtsones from the start.

DEFENCE
1. I am W James the defendant in this matter. My address for service is XXXXXX. I have assumed myself to be the Defendant on the basis that I reside at this address, although all correspondence for this claim have been incorrectly addressed to J Wilson, who does not exist at this address.

I would welcome any thoughts on this. Is it worth including? Pointless? Or no harm - why not.

Thanks