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
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 11th Jul 17, 7:58 PM
    • 24Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Birdo26
    HX Car Park Management, Gladstones Letter Before Claim
    • #1
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:58 PM
    HX Car Park Management, Gladstones Letter Before Claim 11th Jul 17 at 7:58 PM
    Hi,

    Received a PCN from HX Car Park Management

    Spoke to the bowling who said cameras were only installed recently. Signs are not clear at all. But said they can't cancel them.

    Didn't reply to it which was a bit silly but now have received a letter before claim from Gladstones solicitors asking to pay £160 within 14 days.

    Had a search on here and found a reply so sent that by email which I hope is ok. Said not to admit who was driving which i made sure I didn't.

    Just want to know what I should do now and what is likely to happen next.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Birdo26; 11-07-2017 at 8:40 PM.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jul 17, 8:33 PM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 8:33 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 8:33 PM
    You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving.

    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you.

    Everyone is politely asked to read up in the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread.

    You will find lots of advice the court process which will be the next step if they aren't persuaded by your reply to drop this
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 11th Jul 17, 8:45 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 8:45 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 8:45 PM
    Thanks, is an email ok or does it need to be in a witten letter as such?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 10:28 PM
    • 50,660 Posts
    • 64,057 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 10:28 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 10:28 PM
    Signs are not clear at all. But said they can't cancel them.
    They lied.

    The client can always cancel a PCN from their contractor. Be more assertive and/or ask who CAN cancel it.

    Just want to know what I should do now and what is likely to happen next.
    This will happen next:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5678038

    You will learn so much more by reading and bookmarking other Gladstones threads.
    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.

    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 22nd Jul 17, 10:11 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:11 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:11 AM
    Received no further letter from Gladstones and now have County Court Claim Form.
    Last edited by Birdo26; 22-07-2017 at 11:36 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 22nd Jul 17, 10:13 AM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:13 AM
    • #6
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:13 AM
    Read up all about dealing with court in the newbies faq thread.


    Lots of guidance there with links to other resources (as mentioned in #2)
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 22nd Jul 17, 10:43 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    • #7
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:43 AM
    • #7
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:43 AM
    Is it still worth driver going down and pursing the bowling alley>
    Last edited by Birdo26; 22-07-2017 at 11:35 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 22nd Jul 17, 10:48 AM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #8
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:48 AM
    • #8
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:48 AM
    Yes - were you a customer? Give them a hard time and escalate to the right department at head office if you get brushed off as advised to you in #4


    At the same time continue along the court process outlined in the FAQ.


    If the merchant agrees to get the charge cancelled you need to continue the court process until you get notified by the PPC they are cancelling
    Last edited by Quentin; 22-07-2017 at 10:51 AM.
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 22nd Jul 17, 10:58 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    • #9
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:58 AM
    • #9
    • 22nd Jul 17, 10:58 AM
    Driver used the bowling all evening. Ticketing system was only put in 2 weeks before driver went. Has always been free before.

    Will they have dates of when signage was erected? Because when the driver went there were little to no signs but now they have installed more. Have a feeling it may be needed.
    Last edited by Birdo26; 22-07-2017 at 11:35 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 22nd Jul 17, 11:01 AM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    You say in your OP you made sure not to admit who was driving.


    You need to edit subsequent posts where you have done so!


    Yes follow advice in newbies faq about sending AOS


    If you are getting the bowling alley to cancel this then what signs were on show is irrelevant. (It's unlikely anyone at the merchant will know when signs were erected)
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 22nd Jul 17, 11:17 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    Apologies which posts were these?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 22nd Jul 17, 11:28 AM
    • 33,044 Posts
    • 17,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    Use the third person as in "the driver parked all evening"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jul 17, 8:36 PM
    • 50,660 Posts
    • 64,057 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Received no further letter from Gladstones and now have County Court Claim Form.
    Originally posted by Birdo26
    Post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tells you how to handle this, start to finish. Show us your draft defence based on all the zillions of others you find, after you have done the AOS online to MCOL. We win over 99% (one loss I can recall, hundreds of wins over the past year and more).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-07-2017 at 8:51 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.

    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 14th Aug 17, 3:46 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    Gladstones Court Defence. Small help needed.
    Had a look through and managed to find a defence similar to what driver needs. Unsure where the driver should add the following point.

    - The driver was using the premises at the time so the landowner cannot have suffered a loss of earnings.

    Can driver also include that the ticketing had only very recently been installed and all other car parks are free. Sure it said somewhere not to include these?

    Thanks for your help.



    1. I am xx, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is xx.


    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.


    3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.


    4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a xx, registered number xx. I can neither confirm nor deny who was driving on the dates given as it is some time since the events.


    5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of parking charge notices in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at xxx.


    Purported Basis of Claim


    6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:


    a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on xx/xx/2017 & xx/xx/2017.


    b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge


    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site


    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.


    e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time


    Rebuttal of Claim


    7. It is denied that:


    a. A contract was formed


    b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.


    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private ‘fine’) in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, in a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the ‘parking charge’ is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.


    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.


    8. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt, or that any debt is in fact owed, or that any debt exists or could ever or has ever existed.


    My Defence


    9. My defence will rely principally upon the following points


    10. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


    11. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.


    a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.


    12. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.


    a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.


    b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.


    c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.


    13. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are fabricated figures and applied regardless of facts.


    a. 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”.


    b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.


    b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.


    Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:


    14. SIP Parking Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.


    a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.


    b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question


    c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge


    d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. 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.


    15. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:


    ‘The driver of the vehicle registration


    XXXX XXX incurred the parking


    charge(s) on XX/XX/2017, XX/XX/2017 for breaching the


    terms of parking on the land at xxx

    xxx


    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or


    is the Keeper of the Vehicle


    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS


    £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and


    indemnity costs if applicable, together with


    interest of £1.72 pursuant to s69 of the


    County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing


    to Judgement at £0.04 per day’





    16. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.


    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.


    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.


    c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.


    d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.


    It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


    17. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’


    18. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.


    19. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.


    20. The Defendant believes the terms 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.


    21. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.


    22. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.


    23. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss 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 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 17, 6:01 PM
    • 50,660 Posts
    • 64,057 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump, as no replies yet.
    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.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Aug 17, 6:54 PM
    • 1,028 Posts
    • 2,045 Thanks
    Lamilad
    It looks like you've put a load of defences and witness statements into a blender then poured the mixture out above.

    Unsure where the driver should add the following point.

    - The driver was using the premises at the time so the landowner cannot have suffered a loss of earnings.
    He shouldn't

    Can driver also include that the ticketing had only very recently been installed and all other car parks are free.!
    I'm sure it's in the IPC CoP somewhere that where a car park's terms have changed the PPC must make extra effort to bring the changes to the attention of motorists.

    "1. I am xx, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is xx.!"

    Remove paras 2 & 5

    Re #4 I dislike this wording. If you were not the driver, deny it. Otherwise hold the claimant to strict proof who was driving. Are you satisfied their NTK is not PoFA compliant?

    Remove everything under the "purported basis of claim header"

    "10. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established."

    #11 - this could be construed to suggest that the defendant was the driver.

    #15 - you do not need to repeat the particulars here.

    ..... I'm going to leave my analysis here, as I'm having to use my phone which is a hassle. I think you need to do more research. There are much better Gladstone's defences you can crib from.

    Read the links in post#2 of the newbies thread where you'll find loads of good defences. They will show you 'what good looks like' in terms of content and layout.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Aug 17, 8:27 PM
    • 579 Posts
    • 697 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    It's pointless talking about the driver responding to a claim, then basing your claim on no keeper liability. Edit your posts.
    • Birdo26
    • By Birdo26 16th Aug 17, 7:42 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Birdo26
    Appreciate the replies. Had a look through and a read and found a slightly better, more appropriate one. Have removed a few bits and added a couple. Hope this is ok?

    Preliminary Matters.


    (1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
    16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
    Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
    Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
    must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
    as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
    applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
    parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
    necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
    operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
    right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
    directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    (2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
    there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
    of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
    known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
    have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
    is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


    Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!


    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
    claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
    owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
    disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

    On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
    cause of action.


    Statement of Defence


    I am xxx, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
    authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
    incident.
    The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.


    (1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
    ascertained.
    1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
    2. 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.
    3. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
    clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give
    the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is
    mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
    of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper
    liability' provisions of the POFA.


    (2) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
    defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
    have not been provided.
    1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
    Particulars of Claim.
    The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

    4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
    which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
    It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis
    the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
    was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
    exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
    Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
    incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
    give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
    f) On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
    similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
    and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
    particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
    struck out.


    (3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    1. No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to
    the Defendant.
    2. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
    that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
    action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
    own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

    (4) The defendant wrote to the claimant on 11th July 2017 asking for:
    a) Full particulars of the parking charges
    b) The basis for the £50 increase in the charge.
    c) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide
    justification of this sum


    The claimant has not responded.

    (5) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body
    and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no
    excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
    asks leave to amend the Defence.


    (6). HX Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the
    reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
    their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
    landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
    vehicle parking at the location in question
    3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
    specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
    agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    (7)
    1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
    calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
    to £161.72. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
    attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    2. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
    recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

    (8) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
    difficult to read.
    2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an
    ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
    3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the
    windscreen, therfore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
    contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
    4. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
    large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
    this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
    5. As this was a recent change the IPC code of practices states that additional signage should be placed to make sure motorist do not inadvertently incur parking charges. No additional signage was added.

    (10) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
    between the parties and no contract was established.
    The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand
    of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract
    been properly displayed and accessible.

    (11)
    1. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
    further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
    debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
    calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the
    £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
    alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
    Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
    incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs
    to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
    CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    (12). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
    from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
    parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
    contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
    unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
    photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
    hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
    Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.



    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Aug 17, 11:28 PM
    • 50,660 Posts
    • 64,057 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping again for the morning...
    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.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 17th Aug 17, 1:22 AM
    • 1,028 Posts
    • 2,045 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Which parking company has issued the claim, and who (if anyone,) are their legal representatives?

    Between the two defences you have posted you've said it's SIP in one and HX in the other. You've also said that Gladstone's are involved then said the claimant are using their in house legal team.

    What 'contravention' are you accused of e.g failure to pay and display?

    Are you certain the NTK is not PoFA compliant - have you researched this. Could you post a pic of it here via a Dropbox link, photobucket or tinypic?

    It's hard to advise on the available information as some of your points are contradictory and it appears that you've copied and pasted statements from other defences without checking if they're relevant to your case.

    We can give you better advice and help tailor your defence if you can supply more information - circumstances which led to to PCN being issued, approx date of 'contravention', any previous comms between you and PPC, involvement of debt collectors, did you receive a letter before claim... And anything else that helps us understand this case better

    Over to you....
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

180Posts Today

1,278Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I was surprised to see the three people in front of me in the newsagents were all shocked their old £1 coins were no longer taken.

  • RT @natdebtline: If you?ve been visited by a bailiff since April 2014 we want to hear your story for our #bailiffreform campaign https://t.?

  • Well so far it seems there's one thing remainers and leavers agree on - the EU is getting the better of the negotia? https://t.co/70z5ffpG8S

  • Follow Martin