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
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 15th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 1Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Court Claim Form help please
    • #1
    • 15th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    Court Claim Form help please 15th Jul 17 at 8:24 PM
    Hi to everyone,
    I'm a newbie and need some help please. I have read the newbies thread but still need some advice specific to our case.
    The Registered Keeper received a parking ticket last year for parking in a retail park with a "No Parking On Roadways At Any Time" sign for 2 minutes. We did not pay the fine as we thought it was an extortionate amount for parking there for 2 minutes on a Sunday.
    We wrote to UK CPM once, after receiving a Final Demand and to Gladstones Solicitors once too upon receiving a Letter Before Claim from them. But they sent us Court Claim Papers asking for £248.30 in total costs.

    Basically, the driver parked there because she/he is a renal patient and was on PD at the time (a type of dialysis). the driver was due to do a dialysis exchange at that time and parked there so he could check if the restaurant nearby that they were due to have a family dinner in had a toilet suitable enough for him/her to do an exchange. So they all had just parked up and walked into the restaurant and when he/she came out to move the car after checking, there was a ticket on the windscreen.
    Because the driver was hoping to ignore the parking charge notice and hoped to not hear from the parking company again- he/she did not think it necessary to disclose their medical condition and the circumstances to the parking firm.
    So i just wanted to ask if we should state this in our defence as RK or if we can use any orher points in our defence.
    This has caused the RK so much unwanted stress - we just want this finished and over and done with. But we are not willing to pay a single penny to these daylight robbers
    Thank you for taking the time to help us out.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 17, 9:56 PM
    • 48,919 Posts
    • 62,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 15th Jul 17, 9:56 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Jul 17, 9:56 PM
    Yes you must start your defence with the facts of the matter, to make it clear to the Judge what the issues were.

    This will be finished & over and done with after the hearing, win or lose - fight it.

    Your other points would be the usual stuff you see in Gladstones defences and:

    - no grace period allowed, contrary to the IPC Code

    - predatory tactics (hiding/lurking, watching you, then immediate ticketing) contrary to the CoP.

    - no contract/signs unlit and not seen. "No Parking On Roadways At Any Time" fails to make any contractual offer.

    You need to read other similar defences, so try a search of words like:

    'defence Gladstones grace period predatory'


    And look for another defence or two, written this year, to copy from. Show us your draft, and can we check you have done the AOS online on MCOL, to extend the time to defend?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-07-2017 at 10:30 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.

    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 16th Jul 17, 8:44 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    • #3
    • 16th Jul 17, 8:44 AM
    • #3
    • 16th Jul 17, 8:44 AM
    Thank you Coupon-mad.
    Yes the RK has done the AOS online.
    Just need to draft the defence and i shall post a copy of it here.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 26th Jul 17, 6:37 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    • #4
    • 26th Jul 17, 6:37 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Jul 17, 6:37 PM
    Hi again. I'm currently in the process of drafting the defence and wanted to ask one thing - as stated above, the driver is a renal patient - so how do i incorporate this info into the defence? Would this affect the Driver/RK identity disclosure? (if you know what i mean)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jul 17, 1:40 PM
    • 48,919 Posts
    • 62,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 27th Jul 17, 1:40 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Jul 17, 1:40 PM
    In this case, I would write the defence as driver, not using the POFA.

    Talk about the usual stuff = Gladstones useless roboclaims, awful particulars, lack of contract - with the driver and with the landowner - dodgy signs "No Parking On Roadways At Any Time" is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence, no breach of terms, no grace period allowed to decide whether to stay or go, and the fact the driver did appeal, has a recognised disability under the EA and this should fall under 'reasonable adjustments' etc. The charge under these circumstances is therefore unconscionable, as defined in the Beavis case. Any additional charges were not on the signs and have been plucked out of thin air, etc.

    Show us the draft, minus any hiding behind the POFA. Write as driver, because the defence is personal in this case, and anyway, UKCPM will have sent a NTK along the way and the 'no keeper liability' argument against them is less strong than the above list, IMHO.

    Edited to add, you will like this:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5563690&page=2

    Makes GREAT reading!

    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.

    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 1st Aug 17, 2:49 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    • #6
    • 1st Aug 17, 2:49 PM
    • #6
    • 1st Aug 17, 2:49 PM
    Thank you so much Coupon-mad.
    Here's our defence so far.
    How do I incorporate the Beavis case into this as you stated above please?


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    2 It is not known for certain whether the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place because the wife of the Defendant also drives the vehicle in question if needed, depending on the Defendant’s health.

    3 The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was on Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident (he has since changed to Haemo-dialysis).

    4 This type of dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day.

    5 The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where they could have dinner and also where the Defendant could do the exchange. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for them to do the same.

    6 When he returned to the vehicle to move it, there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen within the few minutes he was gone.

    7 The Claimant, who is the member of the BPA, has failed to comply withe the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

    13 Grace periods

    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

    The PCN was issued after a 2 minute stay - the government states a grace period of 10 minutes is given on their land and car parks to prevent fines for just being a few minutes late getting back to the vehicle.

    8 The Equality Act 2010 states:

    Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

    The Defendant does not have blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:


    16 Disabled motorists

    16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.

    16.3 Operators of off-street car parks do not have to recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act. Although a Blue Badge is not issued to all disabled people it is issued to those with mobility problems. So it is a good way for parking operators to identify people who need special parking provision.

    16.4 You are at risk of a claim under the Equality Act if you do not discourage abuse of the ‘disabled’ spaces. This means that you need to make sure the spaces are regularly checked to be sure they are not being used by people who do not have a disability.

    16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.


    9 It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

    10 In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

    11 The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

    12 The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, 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.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 1st Aug 17, 7:20 PM
    • 789 Posts
    • 1,702 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #7
    • 1st Aug 17, 7:20 PM
    • #7
    • 1st Aug 17, 7:20 PM
    In para 2 you say it is not known if the defendant was the driver yet in 5 & 6 you suggest he was.

    The worst thing you can do with your defence is make it appear inconsistent/dishonest.

    Going from your comments above and CM's advice you should defend this as the driver
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 1st Aug 17, 7:24 PM
    • 789 Posts
    • 1,702 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 17, 7:24 PM
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 17, 7:24 PM
    How do I incorporate the Beavis case into this as you stated above please?
    Loads of defences refer to how that case can be distinguished from Beavis and how the supreme court judgement actually assists the defendant rather than the claimant.

    Read other defences and copy the Beavis stuff into your own
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 2nd Aug 17, 7:07 AM
    • 137 Posts
    • 177 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 2nd Aug 17, 7:07 AM
    • #9
    • 2nd Aug 17, 7:07 AM
    As a quick hint - in Beavis there was an undenied contract. Both sides agreed a contract was offered and accepted

    Here you dispute that any contract existed, and indeed the signage does not OFFER a contract to park, it FORBIDS you from parking. So the Beavis case assists you in confirming that the penalty rule is still engaged, and so the PCN is unenforceable.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 2nd Aug 17, 9:02 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Thank you Lamilad.
    I wrote that because we're really not 100% sure which one of us drove the car and parked it up on that day (this was in may last year) . But i will remove that point to simplify things.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 2nd Aug 17, 9:03 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Thank you nosferatu1001.
    I will add that point and re-post the defence here
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 2nd Aug 17, 9:34 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    Here's the amended defence.
    I would really appreciate your feedback so i can send it off as soon as possible. thank you

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

    2 It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

    3 The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was undergoing a type of dialysis called Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident.

    4 Peritoneal Dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD).

    5 The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where he could do the same and also where they could have dinner. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for him to do the fluid exchange.

    6 When he returned to the vehicle to move it, there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen within the few minutes he was gone.

    7 The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply withe Claus 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

    13 Grace periods

    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.


    8 The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy (Berger’s Disease) which is an autoimmune kidney disease. There is no specific cure for the disease and dialysis is just a treatment to help prevent or delay end-stage kidney disease. It is a progressive disease which is covered by The Equality Act 2010 which states:

    Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

    The Defendant does not have a blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:

    16 Disabled motorists

    16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.


    9 It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

    10 Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Points 8 and 9 above, a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    11 The Defendant would also like to provide photographic evidence to show that the roadway on which the PCN was issued is a wide roadway and vehicles parked on one side do not obstruct any ongoing traffic.

    12 In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

    13 The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

    14 The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    15 The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 2nd Aug 17, 9:34 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    i have made a few changes in the wording of the points, etc
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 3rd Aug 17, 5:47 AM
    • 137 Posts
    • 177 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    It reads more as a mix of a witness statement and a defence than one or the other

    A defence is a series of legal arguments. Ideally you want a nice clear, simple list someone can follow as to why you are not liable for the charge.

    I dont think all info should be excised - as actually the details on the disease, and the sudden requirements it can make on a person, give good background and will hopefully gain the courts sympathy.

    So maybe add some headings, for example Background, Equality Act 2010 not complied with (that is the argument you make - the PPC has failed to follow the requirements of the EA2010 in the following ways)

    Mandatory Grace periods not complied with - is another heading. You need to make it clear you went insdie to enquire as to the facilities, before moving the vehicle.

    NO contract offered - is another heading.
    DOuble Recovery - is another. THats the added amounts GS have just pulled from thin air.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 3rd Aug 17, 2:33 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    It reads more as a mix of a witness statement and a defence than one or the other

    A defence is a series of legal arguments. Ideally you want a nice clear, simple list someone can follow as to why you are not liable for the charge.

    I dont think all info should be excised - as actually the details on the disease, and the sudden requirements it can make on a person, give good background and will hopefully gain the courts sympathy.

    So maybe add some headings, for example Background, Equality Act 2010 not complied with (that is the argument you make - the PPC has failed to follow the requirements of the EA2010 in the following ways)

    Mandatory Grace periods not complied with - is another heading. You need to make it clear you went insdie to enquire as to the facilities, before moving the vehicle.

    NO contract offered - is another heading.
    DOuble Recovery - is another. THats the added amounts GS have just pulled from thin air.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001


    Thank you nosferatu1001. Is this better?


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

    2. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

    3. Background

    The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was undergoing a type of dialysis called Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident. Peritoneal Dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD).

    The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where he could do the same and also where they could have dinner. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for him to do the fluid exchange.

    Having made the necessary enquiries, the Defendant returned to the vehicle to move it to a suitable parking spot but there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen, issued within the few minutes he was gone.

    4. Mandatory Grace Periods Not Complied With

    The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply withe Claus 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

    13 Grace periods

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

    5. Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With

    The Claimant has failed to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 which states:

    Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

    The Defendant does not have a blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:

    16 Disabled motorists

    16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.


    6. No Contract Offered

    It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

    7. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Points 5 and 6 above, a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    8. No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

    The Defendant would also like to provide photographic evidence to show that the roadway on which the PCN was issued is a wide roadway and vehicles parked on one side, do not obstruct any ongoing traffic.

    9. Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

    In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

    10. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.


    11. Double Recovery

    The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    12. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 4th Aug 17, 3:16 AM
    • 137 Posts
    • 177 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    11) ... I require the claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were a) detailed in the purported contract b) invoiced and c) actually paid.

    As this is a Gladstones claim you need a new initial arguemnt, after the background. The Particulars of CLaim from Gladstones DO NOT show a cause of action, do not include a copy of te written contract they are alleging has something to do with the claim, etc. It breaches a whole bunch of the CPRs and Practice Directions (PD) on court action. PD7.3-7.5 and CPR16.4, as an example. You ask the court to either strike the claim under their case management powers, for failing to cmoply with CPRs, PDs and in failing to show a clear cause of action, or to order the claimant to provider Further and Better Particulars, and leave for the defendant to amend their defence once a fuller disclosure is made.

    For the Equality Act point - state that the claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustment, in allowing disabled motorists even the normal grace period required under their ATA Code of Practice.

    ALL paragraphs MUST be numbered.
    Last edited by nosferatu1001; 04-08-2017 at 3:18 AM. Reason: para numbering.
    • SaveMeSomeMoney
    • By SaveMeSomeMoney 4th Aug 17, 10:53 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    SaveMeSomeMoney
    11) ... I require the claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were a) detailed in the purported contract b) invoiced and c) actually paid.

    As this is a Gladstones claim you need a new initial arguemnt, after the background. The Particulars of CLaim from Gladstones DO NOT show a cause of action, do not include a copy of te written contract they are alleging has something to do with the claim, etc. It breaches a whole bunch of the CPRs and Practice Directions (PD) on court action. PD7.3-7.5 and CPR16.4, as an example. You ask the court to either strike the claim under their case management powers, for failing to cmoply with CPRs, PDs and in failing to show a clear cause of action, or to order the claimant to provider Further and Better Particulars, and leave for the defendant to amend their defence once a fuller disclosure is made.

    For the Equality Act point - state that the claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustment, in allowing disabled motorists even the normal grace period required under their ATA Code of Practice.

    ALL paragraphs MUST be numbered.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001

    thank you so much for your assistance and patience nosferatu 1001.
    I have added the other details as you suggested and the defence now looks like this:

    1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

    2. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

    Background

    3. The Defendant suffers from IgA Nephropathy, a critical kidney disease. and was undergoing a type of dialysis called Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) at the time of the alleged incident. Peritoneal Dialysis involves fluid bag exchanges four times a day, every day (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD).

    4. The day of the alleged incident was a Sunday and the Defendant was out with his family. As it was time for him to do his scheduled fluid exchange, they decided to look for a restaurant where he could do the same and also where they could have dinner. So he parked up at the spot to quickly go and check whether the restaurant’s disabled toilet was suitable for him to do the fluid exchange.

    5. Having made the necessary enquiries, the Defendant returned to the vehicle to move it to a suitable parking spot but there was already a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen, issued within the few minutes he was gone.

    Preliminary Matters

    6. 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.

    7. 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 Claimant are known to be a serial issuer 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.

    8. 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

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

    Mandatory Grace Periods Not Complied With

    10. The PCN was issued for a 2 minute stay. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply withe Claus 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods:

    13 Grace periods

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

    Equality Act 2010 Not Complied With

    11. The Claimant has failed to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 which states:

    Progressive Conditions: A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

    12. The Defendant does not have a blue badge but clearly has a medical problem which is a recognised disability under the Equality Act 2010. This therefore falls under the ‘reasonable adjustments’ criteria of the Act:

    16 Disabled motorists

    16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

    16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.

    13. The Claimant has failed to make reasonable adjustment in allowing disabled motorists even the normal grace period required under the ATA’s Code of Practice.

    No Contract Offered

    14. It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site (which is scattered and inadequate) states “No parking on roadways at any time” which is a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

    15. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Points 5 and 6 above, a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

    16. The Defendant would also like to provide photographic evidence to show that the roadway on which the PCN was issued is a wide roadway and the vehicle in question was not causing any obstruction to other traffic on the day of the incident.

    Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

    17. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

    18. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

    Double Recovery

    19. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £248.30. i submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    20. I require the Claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were
    a) detailed in the purported contract
    b) invoiced, and
    c) actually paid

    21. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, 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.
    Last edited by SaveMeSomeMoney; 05-08-2017 at 1:28 PM.
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

3,514Posts Today

4,439Users online

Martin's Twitter