Millennium door and Gladstone’s Court Claim Form

I have trawled this website for hours over the last week and have to put my defence in tomorrow - I was away when the claim came through so the time I've had to build my defence has been limited. A lot of the threads on here relate to the Copper Quarter site and residents parking - this relates to a multi business premises car park. All the defences I have read relate to terms of the residential lease, but that doesn't match my situation.

As I have no details of the claim, I have emailed Gladstone requesting the following:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I found a recent defence written with help of Lotsofchildren123, however it applies to the Copper Quarter. Taking out the parts relating to the residents lease and the signage there, I'm not sure it holds much weight:

"1. It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges” as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The date of the alleged incident is xxxxx as per the Particulars of Claim.

3. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained, and no evidence has yet been supplied by the 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. It is reiterated that:
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. It is the defendants right to choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper.

4. 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 and moreover, this case was a criminal case and has since been dismissed previously by Judges in cases brought by Gladstones Solicitors. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being 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).

…….

8. Despite the request for documentation by the defendant, the claimant has not produced these documents to date. It is reasonable for the defendant to request sight of documents and evidence as there is doubt as to the whether the claimant invoked Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 with fully compliant documents. Accordingly, 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. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millenium Door and Event Security, and no proof has been provided.

9. 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. 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.

10. It is suggested by the defendant 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. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule. 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.

12. 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.

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

14. 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.

15. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of its authority both to issue charges on the land in question, and to issue the charge which is the subject of these proceedings. Since the Claimant has failed to produce any information at the pre-action phase of these proceedings to demonstrate its authority, the Defendant must reserve his position in denying that it has such authority until he has had sight of the written contract between the Claimant and the landowner.

16. It is requested by the defendant that 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 Gladstone’s' 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."