Urgent advice kindly requested - County Claim (Gladstone Solicitors)

Umkomaas wrote: »

In any private parking case the driver of the vehicle should not be identified. You need to edit your first post to remove any dentification. Use 'the driver'.

PPCs have copied forum posts (our own Lamilad was such a victim) and used them against the defendant in court.

Done thanks

Thank you all for your swift replies and kind words of support! I have read through some very well worded defences and have compiled / tailored the following to my situation. I would be grateful for your perusal and thoughts! (sorry it's a bit long, would rather be inclusive and chop things out than miss important bits):

Preliminary matters

[1]
The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
[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.
[2]
The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is “roboclaims” and as such is against the public interest.
[2.1]
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!
1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(i) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’, (ii) those which are incoherent and make no sense, (iii) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

On the basis of the above, the defendant respectfully requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

[1]
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

[2]
It is denied that any "parking charges" as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The date of the alleged incident is XX XX 2015, and after having received a Notice to Keeper (NtK) invoice, the defendant wrote a polite and clear response on XX XX 2016 (attached), to which the defendant received no reply. It is therefore confusing why the claimant should wait well over a year, until now to bring proceedings. No advice whatsoever on appeals via the POPLA service has been provided by the claimant.

[3]
As per the photographs attached, the signage was vastly inadequate on the date in question, to form a contract with the motorist:
(a) the signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract
(b) in the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA

[4]
As a result of inadequate signage, the driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

[5]
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained:
(a) the Claimant did not identify the driver
(b) the Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
(c) the Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any clear/prominent signage.

[6]
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided:
(a) the Claim discloses no cause of action to give rise to any debt
(b) the Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
(c) the Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
(d) the Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
(e) on the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
(f) on the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

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.

[7]
The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the final sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed to £17X.XX (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs). This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

[8]
(a) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 “legal representative’s” costs to pursue an alleged £160 debt.
(b) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
(c) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

[9]
On XX XX 2016, the defendant wrote to the claimant asking for:
(a) the legal basis of the charge, which was not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?):
(i) if alleging breach of contract, a breakdown of the alleged 'loss'
(ii) if alleging trespass, evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee', a VAT invoice by return and an explanation of how the company can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when the client originally contracted them in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking.
(b) proof of the locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in their own right for this particular contravention. In addition, the claimant was asked to provide a copy of the contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between the company and the client and the definition of their status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any).
(c) the claimant was advised the following:
“The Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.”
(d) the claimant’s explanation of the consideration that they believe flowed from the driver, and from the claimant, as consideration from both sides is required for a contract.
(e) a copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
(f) the means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS.
(g) the claimant was advised of the following:
“This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.”

The claimant had not responded to any of the above. Withholding any relevant photos of the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.

[10]
In addition to XX 2016, the defendant has now once again contacted the claimant for particulars of the claim, but the defendant has once again received no reply. The defendant has on 2 occasions demonstrated the desire for dialogue and the desire to express the inadequacy of signage to the claimant, but on both occasions the claimant has failed to engage in discussions, choosing solely to send what appears to be a “roboclaim”.
The above point is on the assumption that they don't reply to my latest query

[11]
Parking & Property Management LTD are not the lawful occupier of the land. The defendant has the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case:
(a) the Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
(b) the claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
(c) the Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. The defendant has the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

[12]
This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

[13]
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. The defendant believes the term for such conduct is “roboclaims” 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.

[14]
The defendant respectfully suggests that the courts should not be seen to support parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection.

[15]
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 in ignoring the defendant is wholly unreasonable. As such, the defendant will keep a note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

The defendant respectfully requests 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''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(Name) (Signature) (Date)