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
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 2nd Jul 17, 9:43 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 4Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    PACE/Gladstone court claim
    • #1
    • 2nd Jul 17, 9:43 PM
    PACE/Gladstone court claim 2nd Jul 17 at 9:43 PM
    Hi, all. So the low-down in that I was parked in a small permit car park operated by Ace Security but at the time did not know that it was. Incident happened in October very late a night in a very dark deserted car park and some of the spots in the car park have signs for various companies so I parked in one that corresponded with where I was going, not seeing much else on my drive in and left it at that. Return an hour later and only once I had reversed out of the space and started driving forwards out of the car park (old car so no auto lights, I turned them on and immediately started reversing), do I see a ticket on the windscreen.

    I was told to ignore it as they couldn't get my details but have since received NTK and LBC, both of which responded to requesting information using templates etc from here but not mentioning who is the vehicle keeper.

    They have now filed a claim form with a court really far away from me. I have acknowledged said claim form and could use some help from you knowledgeable folk in writing my defence.

    I believe that as the car park was so dark and not every spot had signage that it was a case of inadequate signage/lighting on their part creating difficult to understand parking terms.

    Also, anyone know how to request a change of court venue as both myself and Ace live in the same town but Gladstone has files for a court 3 hours away from me?
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jul 17, 8:45 PM
    • 51,796 Posts
    • 65,432 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You should have done all replies/appeals in the keeper's name (not yours) as advised in the NEWBIES thread. Big mistake.

    If you were the driver you've made it obvious enough by replying instead of him.
    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.

    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 8th Nov 17, 10:04 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    Had particulars of claim back from Ace below. I've changed a few bits just to strike out identifying bits for online use. The court has now said that I have extra time to file a more detailed defence now that I know what specifically i'm defending. Any advice for what I should add to mine?

    "THE CONTRACT
    1. The Claimant is a Parking Operator managing the land at LOCATION.
    2. The Claimant installed signs (i.e. the “Contract”) on the Land that set out its terms of parking. A
    copy of the Contract is attached to these Particulars of Claim marked ‘Document 1’.
    3. The Claimant entered into a Contract with the driver of the vehicle with Registration Number
    XXX XXX (“the Vehicle”). A schedule is set out below;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    xxxxx
    Not Displaying a Valid Permit
    4. Through the act of parking as described above, pursuant to the Contract, the driver accepted the
    Claimant’s terms and was issued with a Parking Charge Notice for the sum set out in the Contract
    (‘the Relevant Charge’).
    5. The driver failed to pay the Relevant Charge within 28 days (‘the Relevant Period’) or indeed at
    all. The Relevant Charge now forms the substantive element of this claim.
    6. In addition to the Relevant Charge the Claimant claims £50.00 in general damages as a predetermined
    and nominal contribution to its actual losses suffered as a result of the Relevant
    Charge not being paid within the Relevant Period.
    1
    REGISTERED KEEPER
    7. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle.
    8. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has the right to
    recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the Vehicle and the ‘keeper’ of the
    Vehicle is presumed to be the Registered Keeper, unless the contrary is proven.
    9. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant was driving the Vehicle.
    CLAIM FOR INTEREST
    10. The Claimant claims interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% from the
    date of 28 days after the charge until the date of issue of this claim (12 June 2017) and
    continuing at a rate of £0.03 per day until judgment or earlier payment or alternatively at such
    rate that the Court thinks fit.
    CLAIM FOR COSTS
    11. The Claimant claims costs on contractual (indemnity) basis, pursuant to CPR 44.5, as the contract
    contains an expressed indemnity clause permitting them to do so.
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
    (1) The Relevant Charge as a debt;
    (2) Damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract in the sum of £50.00, as set out above;
    (3) Statutory interest, as set out above; and
    (4) Costs on a contractual (indemnity) basis pursuant to CPR 44.5, together with the fixed fees and
    costs of issuing."
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 8th Nov 17, 11:56 PM
    • 747 Posts
    • 1,386 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I need the sign/contract...

    (1) Is this £50 or some other sum? Their claim doesn't even add up. Arguably it's not a debt it's a breach of contract (i.e. failure to display a permit)
    (2) The "actual losses" don't appear to be defined. If that is chasing the debt, the actual loss will be very much lower and if a notional sum only, there is no reason why it could not have been defined and formed part of the signage (which it likely does not). Debt recovery agencies usually work on a no win/no fee basis and whilst this is a Gladstones case, other law firms of similar nature undertake to send letters of claim for as little as £5.
    (3) Interest is discretionary at the Court's behest. In any event, even were you to be liable for interest, interest accrues from day 28 (the last day for payment) not the date of the parking event.
    (4) They are seeking to unpick the costs protection of small claims. That needs to be kicked into touch (hard). Whilst it is correct that legal costs can be recovered if provided for under contract cf Chapelair v Kumari http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/798.html , you will note that the contractual provisions in that case are rather more comprehensive than most signs. In the vast majority of PPC cases these are disallowed (and, in fact, are impermissible, if I recall, in claims brought under POFA, which limits recovery to the PCN amount.

    Indeed, in light of the latter, you may need to have a defence that separates out your responses. The Claimant here argues you should be liable on both fronts on an either/or basis.
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 9th Nov 17, 11:38 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    I need the sign/contract...
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Link to sign here
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/wk7ss6ytru8cs1x/Ace%20sign.pdf?dl=0

    There were also photos from the night in question in a web link from their original letter, that haven't popped up since then, and as far as I know, haven't been submitted to the court.

    Would it be wise for me to bring them up and use them as they show the car in a bay that only has a name sign for the building I was in, NOT an ace sign?
    • vandiemen86
    • By vandiemen86 9th Nov 17, 1:06 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    vandiemen86
    I'm not sure if you've already come across Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) but it might be helpful with respect to the signage.

    It covers exactly what you posted above - it's worth reading the transcript in full and is available online. DJ Iyer found the signage failed to establish a contract and he also mentioned the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 2:08 PM
    • 15,932 Posts
    • 24,717 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I'm not sure if you've already come across Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) but it might be helpful with respect to the signage.

    It covers exactly what you posted above - it's worth reading the transcript in full and is available online. DJ Iyer found the signage failed to establish a contract and he also mentioned the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
    Originally posted by vandiemen86
    Case CS047 on this link:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 9th Nov 17, 4:20 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks guys that's really useful, will have a look and post a fresh defence once i've finished work.
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 9th Nov 17, 10:52 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    Amended Defence Statement, let me know what you think?

    1) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
    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 Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    c) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.

    2) No evidence has been supplied by this 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.

    3) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    4) 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.

    5) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robot-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.

    6) 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.

    7) 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, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    8) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is much less than the claim).

    9) 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. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
    10) No Contract or evidence of Agreement between the Claimant and the land owner has been supplied, therefore it cannot be assumed that the Claimant even has authority to be issuing charge notices or even permits.

    11) It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage as the area was badly lit and sparsely signed, with different bays showing different company signage for various businesses surrounding the car park.
    a) Due to the bad lighting and late time of the parking in winter the ticket issued by the claimant was not in fact seen by the driver until they had reversed out of the bay and started driving forwards towards the exit. I believe this shows just how insufficient the lighting situation in the car park was.

    b) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, and rights of way, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
    c) Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that the Claimant's signs (including the one shown by the Claimant in this case) fail to enter into contract with the driver as implied by the Claimant. No where on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in the car park, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore the opening words of the sign appear to be design more to ward off trespassers than to enter into a contract with the driver.
    d) As the signs failed to enter the Driver into a contract with the Claimant then any costs claimed on a contractual basis cannot be valid.

    12) If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged events were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

    13) In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    14) 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.

    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 is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    16) I suggest 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, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) Failed to create a contract with the driver through insuffience and incorrect signage.

    (b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 17, 11:13 PM
    • 51,796 Posts
    • 65,432 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    ‘robot-claims’ should read ‘robo-claims’.

    If they filed a claim in July, how come you have only now got 'Particulars of Claim'? Were they ordered to file new POC or risk the claim being struck out? And you've also been given a chance to amend your defence?

    Or is that in fact their 'witness statement' and you have a court date at your local court?

    They've said you were the registered keeper, but you said to us earlier, you are not. And they know that...because they know from the DVLA that the rk was your OH who they wrote to with a NTK.

    Also don't forget this:

    My husband is the RK and the original NTK and LBC came to him,
    So, you never received any parking charge notice at all, and so you yourself, were never afforded the opportunity to appeal a PCN.

    Were YOU ever sent a LBC in your name? Yet the claim form suddenly arrived in your name?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-11-2017 at 11:17 PM.
    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.

    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 10th Nov 17, 8:23 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    ‘robot-claims’ should read ‘robo-claims’.

    If they filed a claim in July, how come you have only now got 'Particulars of Claim'? Were they ordered to file new POC or risk the claim being struck out? And you've also been given a chance to amend your defence?

    Or is that in fact their 'witness statement' and you have a court date at your local court?

    They've said you were the registered keeper, but you said to us earlier, you are not. And they know that...because they know from the DVLA that the rk was your OH who they wrote to with a NTK.

    Also don't forget this:

    So, you never received any parking charge notice at all, and so you yourself, were never afforded the opportunity to appeal a PCN.

    Were YOU ever sent a LBC in your name? Yet the claim form suddenly arrived in your name?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    They only filed these particulars once the court threatened to strike out the case. So this is now my amended defence.

    The original NTK and LBC came to my husband who was registered keeper at the time (we no longer have the car), but not driver at the time of incident. I replied, (not mentioning whether i was or was not the registered keeper) to the LBC asking for details etc as recommended here. Then about six months later they then re-wrote the LBC exactly the same but with my name on it. Then once I replied, asking for info again, they then filed the claim form to my name.

    Hope that makes sense.
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 29th Nov 17, 2:31 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    I sent my amended defence in which has made Gladstone put another Directions Questionnaire out as requested by the Court. They are again asking for a hearing on paper, which I have previously replied to with a request for a physical hearing.

    But thanks to Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017 - heard on paper) which features exactly the same parking sign as mine which lost Ace the case due to the lack of contract made with the driver, i'm thinking of changing to case on paper.

    I have a lot of social anxiety and a fear of public speaking so i'm thinking my case is strong enough to win on paper. What do you think, do I still need to push for the physical court date?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 17, 2:37 PM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,218 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Id still go for a real court date.
    ITs not public as such - an office with a judge in a suit and their rep, nothing too crazy.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Nov 17, 5:04 PM
    • 6,475 Posts
    • 8,304 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I sent my amended defence in which has made Gladstone put another Directions Questionnaire out as requested by the Court. They are again asking for a hearing on paper, which I have previously replied to with a request for a physical hearing.

    But thanks to Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017 - heard on paper) which features exactly the same parking sign as mine which lost Ace the case due to the lack of contract made with the driver, i'm thinking of changing to case on paper.

    I have a lot of social anxiety and a fear of public speaking so i'm thinking my case is strong enough to win on paper. What do you think, do I still need to push for the physical court date?
    Originally posted by itsgeekchic
    The problem when it's heard on papers is that you
    have no control and you will kick yourself if you lose.

    Being in front of a judge gives a far better chance that
    you will win, especially with the defence you have.

    Gladstones know that being heard on papers, could be
    successful for them and if they have a weak case which
    is the norm for Gladstones, they will lose in front of
    a judge. The chances are very high that they already
    know they will lose so be very strict, you say NO to papers
    and this must be heard in front of a judge.

    For Gladstones to ask twice for it to be heard on papers
    indicates that they are lacking confidence in their success

    At this stage there is a high possibility Gladstones will
    discontinue and they will let you and the court know.

    Gladstones are of course fully aware of their own
    incompetence in the court, we see it time and time
    again on here.

    Look at this video, the same procedure will happen to you
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

    As you can see, it's no big deal. The judge knows that
    you will be nervous and will allow for that, he will lead
    the conversation and ask questions, the answers will be
    no more than you have given here and in your statement.

    Refer to the judge as Sir or Madam and let the judge take
    the lead.

    Simply remember the courts already know about the
    highly incompetent Gladstones

    After you win, you will feel a much better person which
    in turn will set you up for life's hiccups
    Last edited by beamerguy; 29-11-2017 at 5:28 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • itsgeekchic
    • By itsgeekchic 30th Nov 17, 9:01 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    itsgeekchic
    Thank you Beamerguy, that's helped ease my nerves a bit
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 30th Nov 17, 9:14 AM
    • 1,818 Posts
    • 3,210 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    that's helped ease my nerves a bit
    That video makes it look like going into see the headmaster - which I suppose that is just what it is like. The school bully trying to make you cough up when it is clear to "sir" it is them bullying you.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
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

2,962Posts Today

6,643Users online

Martin's Twitter