Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • thexyz619
    • By thexyz619 10th Nov 16, 6:39 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 7Thanks
    thexyz619
    Gladstones County Court Claim Defence
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 16, 6:39 PM
    Gladstones County Court Claim Defence 10th Nov 16 at 6:39 PM
    Hi there,

    Submitting this defence tomorrow so just wondering whether anyone might be able to give me some last minute feedback. The driver doesn't have a copy of the original PCN and no notice to keeper was issued. I then incorrectly followed advice to ignore the Gladstones LBC on behalf of their client who produced a claim form with an incredibly incoherent particulars of claim. Just wondering whether people might be able to give me advice on anything I've missed.

    Cheers.

    It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.

    1. The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
    1a. Under Practice Direction 16, the particulars of claim fails to adhere to 7.1 which states the particulars should include an “identification of the land” on which the offence took place.
    1b. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
    1c. The particulars of claim also fails to specify where the acts “constituting the conduct were done” in accordance with 7.5. A date is listed within the particulars but fails to list what the offence is related to.
    1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
    1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.

    2. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper. The Defendant refutes that any Notice to Keeper was issued and the Claimant has failed to provide any withstanding evidence that one has been issued.
    2a. The failure to issue a Notice to Keeper or supply evidence that a Notice to Keeper has been issued within the particulars of claim as per 4.8/4.9 breach PoFA 2012 under Schedule 4.
    2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.

    3. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.
    3a.As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
    3b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
    4a. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
    4b. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

    5. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 17, 10:22 PM
    • 50,117 Posts
    • 63,499 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You can't introduce brand new points of defence as such but yes, the WS can state what happened when which would include 'I noticed that the claimant has submitted false / misleading evidence (the photo of a parking ticket not for that car park)...

    So yes you can get this into your WS, as lamilad rightly says.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,539Posts Today

8,253Users online

Martin's Twitter