IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
IAS Appeal Lost - Now what?
Comments
-
Update: I believe i have completed my defense. Would anyone be able to give it a once over and advise accordingly? How would i go about this? Would it not be wise to post my entire defense on here..?
Much appreciated. Thanks.0 -
It is fine to show us here in full view, your defence (not defense, that's American spelling)!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Apologies about the delay. Here is my defence (that was my google auto-correct extension!!!) so far.
1) It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2) The vehicle was parked on the land alleged in the defendant’s claim.
3) It is denied that any 'parking charges/damages and indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in the following claim: xxxxxxxxxxxx. The Particulars are not clear and concise in their Particulars of Claim found on the Claim Form.
5) The Particulars of Claims fails to fulfil CPR16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a “Parking Charge Notice(s)” with no further description. The defendant also believes there has been a similar Particulars of Claims dismissed at another court, and suggest they are simply “robo-filing”. This is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
6) 12. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £16x.x9. This appears to be an added cost invented fancifully and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
7) This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any 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'. 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' and 'indemnity costs'. As the contractors are not the land owners, it is also unclear as to how “damages” are caused.
8) 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.
9) 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.
a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
b) The Claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal Representative’s costs’. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, requiring no intervention from a Solicitor often generating up to £50,000 of income they are put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.
c) The Claim is in excess of £230. Without information to the contrary, I believe the original amount for a Parking Charge would have been £100 or £60 if paid within the first 14 days. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, I also object to all additional charges associated with this Claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.
10) 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.
11) A sitemap was requested from the defendant to which a sitemap had been provided. The sitemap clearly indicates the area of coverage by a key that had been drawn at the bottom of the sitemap, symbolizing 3 different enforceable signs and their respective locations, along with bounding boxes to distinguish areas of enforcement. The defendants parked vehicle was not in fact inside any enforcement zone as shown in the sitemap provided by the claimant. Therefore, the defendant asks the court to strike the claim on this ground.
12) I request the court strike out this claim 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.
---
Any feedback would be much appreciated!
Thanks.0 -
Unless you have 2 claims, you need to remove anything talking about 2 claims, like the above.7) This claim [STRIKE]and the other very similar one[/STRIKE] merely states:
And remove the '12' from here:6) [STRIKE]12.[/STRIKE] The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £16x.x9.
...and why above, do you say the claim is £16x.x9, yet later you give a different sum in 9c:c) The Claim is in excess of £230.
And this is too wordy and I think this should be nearer the top of your defence if this is true:11) A sitemap was [STRIKE]requested from the defendant to which a sitemap had been[/STRIKE] provided which The sitemap [STRIKE]clearly[/STRIKE] indicates the area of coverage by a key that had been drawn at the bottom of the sitemap, symbolizing 3 different enforceable signs and their respective locations, along with bounding boxes to distinguish areas of enforcement. The defendants parked vehicle was not in fact inside any enforcement zone as shown in the sitemap provided by the claimant. Therefore, the defendant asks the court to strike the claim on this ground.
...and near the top of the defence you should spell out what the parking event was about because the draft so far is all template stuff and almost no facts of the case, so you need to tell the Judge things like this (these points will need numbering, per paragraph):
A parking charge was issued for an allegation of "not parked within a designated bay" but this was contested on appeal because there were no bay lines other than "bricks" in the pavement and no signs at all in view, relating to this spot. The nearest sign is on another wall some 25 metres away and relating to a separate car park area.
The place where the car was parked has room for two cars and the residents confirm that it is usual to park two cars here, as was the case. Indeed I have evidence from Google maps that this is/has historically been used as a two car space and the residents confirm they are not charged for using it for two vehicles. No signs preclude or restrict the parking of two vehicles at this place so there was no contravention. Even if the signage terms are considered by the court to be possibly capable of creating a contract, they were unlit and 25 metres away, at the entrance to a car park and it is not reasonable to assume that a car park sign elsewhere on a dark wall, relates to these isolated/unmarked spaces.
The signs are in any event, prohibitive and make no offer. Consideration does not flow between a driver and this Claimant, when parking in these double-car spaces on this roadway, so there was no agreed contract.
I was parked as a legitimate visitor, upon the invitation of the residents who are tenants at this location where there is no restriction upon this unallocated double car space and no known charge for using it. The residents have rights of way and easements flowing from their Tenancy Agreement and, as this area is outside the enforcement area, Link Parking have no right to disregard the rights of residents and their visitors.
In this regard, I rely upon the transcripts in the (Gladstones solicitors) cases of:
- Link Parking v Parkinson - C7GF50J7
- PACE v Noor - C6GF14F0
- and the persuasive Appeal decision from 2016 by His Honour Charles Harris QC: Jopson v Home Guard - B9GF0A9E.
The residents' Tenancy terms/permit terms (which do not mention any parking charge risk) and the above court transcripts will be provided in evidence. The cases support the view that penalties which ignore the rights of residents make life in a block of flats ''unworkable'' and it was found in each case that the signs - such as they are - were of no consequence and created no new contract terms capable of unilaterally varying the grant under a residential lease. Indeed the parking restrictions foisted upon residents and visitors were a matter of derogation from grant and I believe my case, as a legitimate visitor of a resident with primacy of contract, is on all fours with those cases.
In any event, this space is not within the 'site map' enforcement area as evidenced to the IAS stage appeal, where it can be noted that the anonymous (Trade Body provided) so-called 'adjudicator' saw and commented that the evidence from this operator failed to show sufficient nearby signs and/or marked lines. Bizarrely, the decision still went against me on the spurious reasoning that a previous PCN issued in another area for a completely different reason must mean that I was 'aware of the restrictions'.
I realise now I had little or no chance of success during the spurious 'appeal' process. It is a fact that this Claimant is a member of the 'International Parking Community' (IPC), a Trade Body which also operates the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) which is seen as anything but a fair 'ADR'. Turning down my appeal based merely on the fact I had paid a different PCN months before, is sadly typical of the spurious decisions regularly reported in the public domain, calling into question the independence of the IAS.
Both the IPC and IAS are run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. Due to this conflict of interests, the Claimant and their representatives do not come to this matter with clean hands and far too many cases are resulting in claims because this notorious industry runs two conflicting Trade Bodies, both proving incapable of self-regulation/fair appeals.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Unless you have 2 claims, you need to remove anything talking about 2 claims, like the above.
And remove the '12' from here:
...and why above, do you say the claim is £16x.x9, yet later you give a different sum in 9c:
These were the charges for the original PCN, to the inflated price that they further amounted to. The original charge was that of £60, risen to £100 if not paid to in 14 days. Total charge now is £237.49. £162.49 amount claimed, £25 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs.
And this is too wordy and I think this should be nearer the top of your defence if this is true:
...and near the top of the defence you should spell out what the parking event was about because the draft so far is all template stuff and almost no facts of the case, so you need to tell the Judge things like this (these points will need numbering, per paragraph):
A parking charge was issued for an allegation of "not parked within a designated bay" but this was contested on appeal because there were no bay lines other than "bricks" in the pavement and no signs at all in view, relating to this spot. The nearest sign is on another wall some 25 metres away and relating to a separate car park area.
The place where the car was parked has room for two cars and the residents confirm that it is usual to park two cars here, as was the case. Indeed I have evidence from Google maps that this is/has historically been used as a two car space and the residents confirm they are not charged for using it for two vehicles. No signs preclude or restrict the parking of two vehicles at this place so there was no contravention. Even if the signage terms are considered by the court to be possibly capable of creating a contract, they were unlit and 25 metres away, at the entrance to a car park and it is not reasonable to assume that a car park sign elsewhere on a dark wall, relates to these isolated/unmarked spaces.
The signs are in any event, prohibitive and make no offer. Consideration does not flow between a driver and this Claimant, when parking in these double-car spaces on this roadway, so there was no agreed contract.
I was parked as a legitimate visitor, upon the invitation of the residents who are tenants at this location where there is no restriction upon this unallocated double car space and no known charge for using it. The residents have rights of way and easements flowing from their Tenancy Agreement and, as this area is outside the enforcement area, Link Parking have no right to disregard the rights of residents and their visitors.
In this regard, I rely upon the transcripts in the (Gladstones solicitors) cases of:
- Link Parking v Parkinson - C7GF50J7
- PACE v Noor - C6GF14F0
- and the persuasive Appeal decision from 2016 by His Honour Charles Harris QC: Jopson v Home Guard - B9GF0A9E.
The residents' Tenancy terms/permit terms (which do not mention any parking charge risk) and the above court transcripts will be provided in evidence. The cases support the view that penalties which ignore the rights of residents make life in a block of flats ''unworkable'' and it was found in each case that the signs - such as they are - were of no consequence and created no new contract terms capable of unilaterally varying the grant under a residential lease. Indeed the parking restrictions foisted upon residents and visitors were a matter of derogation from grant and I believe my case, as a legitimate visitor of a resident with primacy of contract, is on all fours with those cases.
In any event, this space is not within the 'site map' enforcement area as evidenced to the IAS stage appeal, where it can be noted that the anonymous (Trade Body provided) so-called 'adjudicator' saw and commented that the evidence from this operator failed to show sufficient nearby signs and/or marked lines. Bizarrely, the decision still went against me on the spurious reasoning that a previous PCN issued in another area for a completely different reason must mean that I was 'aware of the restrictions'.
I realise now I had little or no chance of success during the spurious 'appeal' process. It is a fact that this Claimant is a member of the 'International Parking Community' (IPC), a Trade Body which also operates the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) which is seen as anything but a fair 'ADR'. Turning down my appeal based merely on the fact I had paid a different PCN months before, is sadly typical of the spurious decisions regularly reported in the public domain, calling into question the independence of the IAS.
Both the IPC and IAS are run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. Due to this conflict of interests, the Claimant and their representatives do not come to this matter with clean hands and far too many cases are resulting in claims because this notorious industry runs two conflicting Trade Bodies, both proving incapable of self-regulation/fair appeals.
I think i mat be out of time here? I'm kinda panicking!! I've been away with work and i understand 28 days from court date? The issue date is 17/03/17 so i make it 29 days?? Am i out of time!!?!? Help!!
Your help is much appreciated here! I cannot thank you enough!0 -
To speed things up, hopefully, here is the newly drafted one with your input Coupon-Mad.
----
1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr
, residing at
is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2) The vehicle was parked on the land alleged in the defendant’s claim.
3) It is denied that any 'parking charges/damages and indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
4) A sitemap was provided which the sitemap indicates the area of coverage by a key that had been drawn at the bottom of the sitemap, symbolizing 3 different enforceable signs and their respective locations, along with bounding boxes to distinguish areas of enforcement. The defendants parked vehicle was not in fact inside any enforcement zone as shown in the sitemap provided by the claimant. Therefore, the defendant asks the court to strike the claim on this ground.
5) A parking charge was issued for an allegation of "not parked within a designated bay" but this was contested on appeal because there were no bay lines other than "bricks" in the pavement and no signs at all in view, relating to this spot. The nearest sign is on another wall some 25 metres away and relating to a separate car park area.
6) The place where the car was parked has room for two cars and the residents confirm that it is usual to park two cars here, as was the case. Indeed I have evidence from Google maps that this is/has historically been used as a two car space and the residents confirm they are not charged for using it for two vehicles. No signs preclude or restrict the parking of two vehicles at this place so there was no contravention. Even if the signage terms are considered by the court to be possibly capable of creating a contract, they were unlit and 25 metres away, at the entrance to a car park and it is not reasonable to assume that a car park sign elsewhere on a dark wall, relates to these isolated/unmarked spaces.
7) The signs are in any event, prohibitive and make no offer. Consideration does not flow between a driver and this Claimant, when parking in these double-car spaces on this roadway, so there was no agreed contract.
8) I was parked as a legitimate visitor, upon the invitation of the residents who are tenants at this location where there is no restriction upon this unallocated double car space and no known charge for using it. The residents have rights of way and easements flowing from their Tenancy Agreement and, as this area is outside the enforcement area, Link Parking have no right to disregard the rights of residents and their visitors.
9) In this regard, I rely upon the transcripts in the (Gladstones solicitors) cases of:
- Link Parking v Parkinson - C7GF50J7
- PACE v Noor - C6GF14F0
- and the persuasive Appeal decision from 2016 by His Honour Charles Harris QC: Jopson v Home Guard - B9GF0A9E.
10) The residents' Tenancy terms/permit terms (which do not mention any parking charge risk) and the above court transcripts will be provided in evidence. The cases support the view that penalties which ignore the rights of residents make life in a block of flats ''unworkable'' and it was found in each case that the signs - such as they are - were of no consequence and created no new contract terms capable of unilaterally varying the grant under a residential lease. Indeed the parking restrictions foisted upon residents and visitors were a matter of derogation from grant and I believe my case, as a legitimate visitor of a resident with primacy of contract, is on all fours with those cases.
11) In any event, this space is not within the 'site map' enforcement area as evidenced to the IAS stage appeal, where it can be noted that the anonymous (Trade Body provided) so-called 'adjudicator' saw and commented that the evidence from this operator failed to show sufficient nearby signs and/or marked lines. Bizarrely, the decision still went against me on the spurious reasoning that a previous PCN issued in another area for a completely different reason must mean that I was 'aware of the restrictions'.
12) I realise now I had little or no chance of success during the spurious 'appeal' process. It is a fact that this Claimant is a member of the 'International Parking Community' (IPC), a Trade Body which also operates the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) which is seen as anything but a fair 'ADR'. Turning down my appeal based merely on the fact I had paid a different PCN months before, is sadly typical of the spurious decisions regularly reported in the public domain, calling into question the independence of the IAS.
13) Both the IPC and IAS are run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. Due to this conflict of interests, the Claimant and their representatives do not come to this matter with clean hands and far too many cases are resulting in claims because this notorious industry runs two conflicting Trade Bodies, both proving incapable of self-regulation/fair appeals.
14) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in the following claim:
. The Particulars are not clear and concise in their Particulars of Claim found on the Claim Form.
15) The Particulars of Claims fails to fulfil CPR16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a “Parking Charge Notice(s)” with no further description. The defendant also believes there has been a similar Particulars of Claims dismissed at another court, and suggest they are simply “robo-filing”. This is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
16) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £162.49. This appears to be an added cost invented fancifully and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
17) This claim merely states: ''parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any 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'. 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' and 'indemnity costs'. As the contractors are not the land owners, it is also unclear as to how “damages” are caused.
18) 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.
19) 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.
a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
b) The Claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal Representative’s costs’. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, requiring no intervention from a Solicitor often generating up to £50,000 of income they are put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.
c) The Claim is in excess of £230. Without information to the contrary, I believe the original amount for a Parking Charge would have been £100 or £60 if paid within the first 14 days. Given the Claimant uses a fully automated, bulk processing service, I also object to all additional charges associated with this Claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.
20) 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.
21) I request the court strike out this claim 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.0 -
Could someone just clarify and confirm this please?
"2. You should now Acknowledge Service of the claim, ticking the box that says you will defend in full. Do NOT put anything in the 'Defence and Counterclaim' text box, not even a full stop. By doing this, you have extended the time to submit a defence to 28 days from date of service, which is the date printed on the claim form plus 5 days. Now it's time to burn the midnight oil, and research relevant defences on these forums. Only look at recent stuff, and don't just blindly cut and paste text, you must adapt it so that it's relevant to your claim."
Why is this +5 days? The issue date on my form is the 17th March. Does this mean i have until 18th April? Thank you in advanced.0 -
''...and why above, do you say the claim is £16x.x9, yet later you give a different sum in 9c:''
These were the charges for the original PCN, to the inflated price that they further amounted to. The original charge was that of £60, risen to £100 if not paid to in 14 days. Total charge now is £237.49. £162.49 amount claimed, £25 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs.
So you still need to consistently object to the full sum of £237.49 (in both places). It reads wrong to state two different sums.Why is this +5 days? The issue date on my form is the 17th March. Does this mean i have until 18th April?
Yes. Up to 5 days is added for service (delivery) of the court claim form to you, and yours was dated on a Friday anyway, so that's only fair.
I would finish this defence this long weekend then email it to the CCBC as a PDF attachment on Tuesday morning. You are not out of time.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just to add that you could nail it more here near the start, so the Judge in the end, at a hearing, doesn't miss this crucial point:2) The vehicle was parked on the land alleged in the defendant’s claim but not within their enforcement boundaries, according to evidence provided by this Claimant themselves.
And did I understand it right that you were visiting friends who are tenants? Or are you the tenant here?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Okay thanks. I did have it planned out i would drive and hand deliver the letter Monday to the court, but if i can e-mail it, i'll do that.
That is correct. Edit: -
Also to state, there was a letter sent to them stating that Link Parking would start enforcing their area. This was dated 19/09/15 and it stated...
"Dear Resident, Due to a recent increase in complaints related to on site parking we wish to inform you of the following:
- As a result of numerous complaints by residents regarding outsiders parking in the development, we are implementing parking permits for visitors bays and ticketing on site.
- Visitor bays will be clearly marked as of Friday 25th September 2015.
- 1 Visitor permit will be issued per unit.
- A permit must be clearly displayed when any vehicle is parked within a visitor parking bay.
- Residents must park their vehicles in their designated parking bays only.
- Any cars parked outside the boundaries of a bay will be ticketed.
- Parking in front of the Crescent building is prohibited. Cars will be ticked.
- If you wish to have your designated bay monitored free of charge please register your parking bay and car registration numbers on the Link Parking Website.
- The car parking area is monitored by an independent company; Link Parking Ltd.
- Any issues related to car parking on the site must be addressed to Link Parking Ltd and not First Port Bespoke Property Services. First Port has NO control over the revoking of tickets. These queries must be directed to Link Parking Ltd.
This was the letter addressed to my friend, and no doubt what so ever would the other tenant (his friend, the spot i was in) have the same letter stating this.
Edit: I have a copy of the letter that the friend has taken a picture of for me, should i need this in Court. Will this in anyway help?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards