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
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 6th Jan 17, 10:57 AM
    • 71Posts
    • 33Thanks
    AOneVS
    Gladstones CCC - UKCPM
    • #1
    • 6th Jan 17, 10:57 AM
    Gladstones CCC - UKCPM 6th Jan 17 at 10:57 AM
    Hi all, I've got a thread running on PePiPoo (same username), but thought a fresh set of eyes might help regarding my situation. Two heads are better than one, so to speak.

    I received a county court claim form from Gladstones last week. I've acknowledged the claim online and have created a draft defence. Here's some background:

    Car was parked in a visitors space on the estate I live and was ticketed by UK Car Park Management LTD at 9:43pm on 6th March.
    The reason for the ticket was given as Overstay.

    No sign was available in the visitors parking area. There are signs on the entrance and around the estate. Signs have since been updated to include wording about the visitors spaces:

    VEHICLES PARKED ARE ALLOWED TO STAY FOR A MAXIMUM 4 HOURS AND NOT RETURN FOR 4 HOURS. APPLIES 00:00 to 08:00

    The signs also have the BPA Approved Operator logo on, when the BPA have stated they're only corporate members'. Parking control started by UKCPM sometime in 2013, apparently to stop residents using the visitors spaces. I moved into the estate in 2015.

    The lease states: "Not to use the Visitors Parking Spaces other than for the temporary parking of vehicles belonging to visitors attending at the Property."

    Notice to Keeper was received, dated 7th April. Incorrectly ignored. I mistakenly thought there was little point in appealing to the IPC/IAS and their kangaroo court!

    Many DRP letters received and ignored.

    Letter Before Claim from Gladstones received on 14th November with scant detail and a request to pay £139.

    County court claim form received on 30th December. Acknowledged on MCOL. Part 18 request emailed yesterday.

    Particulars of Claim:
    The driver of vehicle registration ******* (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 06/03/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at The Grange xxxx

    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS £139 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £7.96 pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at 0p per day.

    Amount claimed: 146.96
    Court fee: 25.00
    Legal representative's costs: 50.00
    Total amount: 221.96

    Here's my draft defence:

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

    -and-

    XXX
    ________________________

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________

    1) It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    2) The Particulars of the Claim submitted to the Defendant provide no statement to the nature of the claim and the Defendant does not believe these particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a comprehensive and conclusive defence.

    3) The Defendant has prepared the defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an allocated leasehold residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.

    4) The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the capacity to offer parking.

    a) The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.

    b) Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of £139.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    5) The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur action).

    6) The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

    a) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

    b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.

    7) The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from the ‘Parking Rules’ on the signage. It is a forbidding sign that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.

    8) The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    a) The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

    9) In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well-known and well established principle that ‘a grantor shall not derogate from his grant’

    10) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    a) In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest […..] in enforcement of the primary obligation’

    b) There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.

    11) The exact question regarding terms in a lease was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.

    a) The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.

    12) The Defendant also relies upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016, where District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, having found that a third party parking firm cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

    13) The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred solicitors costs of £50 to prepare the claim. The Defendant refers the Court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.

    14) 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.

    15) 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.

    16) 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.

    17) 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.

    18) I request 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''.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


    Could anything be added or taken out to make this as strong a defence as possible?

    Thanks in advance
Page 7
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 17, 2:03 PM
    • 46,894 Posts
    • 60,220 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that's what many people have to do, because open court hours don't suit everyone.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 13th May 17, 10:42 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Witness statement and exhibits all sorted. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but will these be kept separate to the court bundle? So will have it's own numbering?

    For the bundle, I'm intending to rely on the follow cases:

    • Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Tenancy trumps signage)
    • Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Tenancy trumps signage)
    • Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016 (Tenancy trumps signage)
    • Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] (Tenancy trumps signage)
    • B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (forbidding signage)
    • B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (forbidding signage)
    • B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (forbidding signage)

    In my WS I mention The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, can I rely on this or does it need to be exhibited?

    Is there anything else I should consider relying on?

    When I have ALL of this together, what is the best way of keeping it that way? Do people use a folder or some other method?
    Originally posted by AOneVS
    I've quoted myself as it's on a different page Do you think I need to rely on anything else?
    Due to work commitments, I need to hand this in on Monday.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 17, 11:00 PM
    • 46,894 Posts
    • 60,220 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In my WS I mention The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, can I rely on this or does it need to be exhibited?
    You should not have to exhibit a statute, but you could include the relevant page/paragraph.

    When I have ALL of this together, what is the best way of keeping it that way? Do people use a folder or some other method?
    Ring binder to the court, with a costs schedule (an example is linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread) and a contents page to explain the pages & numbered exhibits, at the front. Claim number/name of defendant/date of hearing, in a footer on every page, is what I would do.

    As for the Claimant, email their version to them, let them print the damn thing! Send a copy to yourself by copying your email in (or another email addy you use) and print out the proof that the email & attachment arrived, in case the Claimant's rep pretends in court that it didn't.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 14th May 17, 10:09 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    115 pages ready to send tomorrow!

    Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 15th May 17, 1:28 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Dropped off at the court. There was no way the binder was going to fit through their post box. Thankfully the usher was on hand and took it in.

    Out of interest, isn't the claimant also bound by the 14 days before hearing to send me whatever they're relying on etc? The last day is tomorrow... is there anything stopping me sending them my stuff at the very last minute?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 15th May 17, 3:52 PM
    • 2,433 Posts
    • 2,454 Thanks
    DoaM
    Keep the moral high ground ... email your pack to them in time, don't leave it until the last minute. (As above, copying to your own/another email address, so you know it has arrived - make sure to triple-check their email address - and print out your own received copy email as proof).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 15th May 17, 5:34 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Emailed 15mb of pdf files to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. Copied myself in and received it OK.

    Feels like quite a slog to get all that done. Think I'll treat myself to a dram of whisky tonight!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th May 17, 5:57 PM
    • 5,285 Posts
    • 6,707 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Emailed 15mb of pdf files to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. Copied myself in and received it OK.

    Feels like quite a slog to get all that done. Think I'll treat myself to a dram of whisky tonight!
    Originally posted by AOneVS
    15mb is a lot. even though you received it does not mean they did
    as they may restrict data size

    I would advise uploading to a free site and confirm by sending them a link
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 15th May 17, 7:02 PM
    • 681 Posts
    • 1,464 Thanks
    Lamilad
    15mb is a lot. even though you received it does not mean they did
    as they may restrict data size

    I would advise uploading to a free site and confirm by sending them a link
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    +1 I emailed my 12mb bundle to BWL. My email handles attachments upto 20 mb. They emailed me 6 days before the hearing to say they hadn't received anything. I sent them the Dropbox link and fortunately got away with the late service
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 15th May 17, 7:08 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Thanks both. Begrudgingly copied the docs to Google Drive, then emailed them the link
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 16th May 17, 10:30 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I always scan a bundle in batches and send in batches to avoid this, making it clear in the covering email that I'm sending it in 2 parts - if you don't want to get involved with links.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 16th May 17, 9:10 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Today is 14 days before the hearing date. Which is the date the judge gave as the latest to send documents to court and each other. So I've played my part. Zero from them though. Surprised? No, but does this give me an edge?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 17, 9:15 PM
    • 46,894 Posts
    • 60,220 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it does.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 17th May 17, 12:20 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You can jump up and own about late service but unless it's so late that it prejudices you then a judge is unlikely to bat an eyelid.


    The evidence is supposed to be served on the same day so as not to give either of you an advantage in seeing the other's evidence before you complete your own. In other words, the evidence of one party is not supposed to "reply" to the evidence of the other party. They may do this to you. Again, you can jump up and down about it but the judge is unlikely to care.


    It may help in the bigger picture of showing unreasonable conduct - they start the case with a disregard of the Pre-Action Practice Direction, then conduct the case with a disregard for the CPR, in contempt of court orders and with no regard for the other party and their rights under the CPR and to a fair trial.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 25th May 17, 3:54 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Just received their witness statement dated 24th May. The court date is next Tuesday.

    I needed a laugh What's the best way of sharing this gem?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 25th May 17, 3:58 PM
    • 2,433 Posts
    • 2,454 Thanks
    DoaM
    Dropbox? Google drive?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 25th May 17, 4:46 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    Google drive link
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 25th May 17, 4:51 PM
    • 2,433 Posts
    • 2,454 Thanks
    DoaM
    Originally posted by jasonhenry
    You know what to do, folks.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 25th May 17, 5:17 PM
    • 1,292 Posts
    • 2,376 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    So basic line is that Gladstones/UKCPM are attempting to mislead the court by falsely claiming the facsimile sign is the same sign as the one on the pole.

    Doesn't take much to show they are lying.

    Suggest you send them an email to UKCPM saying that you intend to ask for an adjournment so that someone from UKCPM can come along and explain the discrepancy between the facsimile and the photo.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 25th May 17, 5:33 PM
    • 71 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AOneVS
    I'm trying to work out what's going on with that first sign. It has brickwork behind it but is in shadow of another sign on a lamp post. Also, the 'V' BAYS: MAX STAY 4HRS' text looks very suspect and not something I've ever seen on a sign around the estate.

    I got a voicemail from the court saying I've been double booked. I'll find out tomorrow if they're going to relist
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

447Posts Today

4,294Users online

Martin's Twitter