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
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    • 54Posts
    • 28Thanks
    wi3347
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form
    • #1
    • 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form 24th Aug 17 at 8:32 PM
    Hello everyone, posted on here before about a PCN I had in 2012 which ended up in court and had some really good advice so posting here again. The vehicle im registered keeper for got a PCN in November last year. Its reached the claim form stage. I have done the acknowledgement of service on MCOL and need to submit my defence. The details of the PCN are.
    Name of the Claimant ? Millennium door and event security ltd.
    claimants Solicitors: Gladstones solicitors Ltd

    Date of issue – 09 Aug 2017 .

    Particulars of claim –
    1. "The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge on 15/11/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on land at Metropole Chambers Swansea SA13RT.

    2.The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle

    3.and the claimant claims £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.35 pursuant to s69 of the country courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day."

    What is the value of the claim? total of £243.35

    the initial online defence im going to submit tomorrow (pending advice) is

    The whole claim is denied in its entirety for a number of reasons which will be expanded upon in my witness statement should this claim be allocated to the small claims track.

    1. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the aleged contravention.
    2. The claimant is required under schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act 2012, to adhere to a number of strict requirements set out within that act in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper and has failed to do so, therefore the defendant is not liable in this matter as he was not the driver and POFA 2012 has not been complied with.
    3. The wording of the signage at the location is confusing and contradictory so cannot be said to be a genuine offer to form a contract. The claimant states the claim is for "parking charges" yet at the location there is no tariff of charges to refer to nor any way offered to pay the prescribed fee if it was deemed to be a contract and that the offer was accepted.
    4.It is unclear from the Particulars or claim if the claimant seeks to claim from the driver or rely on the POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. It clearly states in POFA 2012 that the claimants cannot claim for more than is stated in the original notice to keeper, in this case £100.
    5. The claimant has made a number of unsubstantiated claims in the courts and are abusing the court process as a method of intimidation or coercion rather than for collecting monies they have proper entitlement to and the defendant invites the court to strike out the claim.

    any help / advice / recommendations is much appreciated!
Page 4
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 25th Sep 17, 2:29 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    still not received my directions questions or anyting else from the court as yet which seems odd?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Sep 17, 3:43 PM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    sorry, joining this debate late.
    I agree with you wi3347 that you should include in brief terms the LR info showing you couldn't possibly have been parked in Metropole Chambers as it's just the building.
    Also what Umkomaas said about the CoP.
    I'd also add in a sentence at the end to say that if this is not withdrawn, you will be issuing a claim for damages for a breach of your rights under the Data Protection Act. And as part of your offer for a drop hands settlement you will agree not to pursue such proceedings.
    In my case they were a bit concerned about the potential for a DPA claim. I didn't make one at all, but reserved my position. Their offer of a drop hands to me (on the eve of the hearing) was in return for me dropping the DPA counterclaim (even though there wasn't actually a counterclaim)


    if this goes further, the planning rules for advertisements are very slightly different in Wales. There was a thread on planning a couple of months ago where I put chapter and verse for England and for Wales where it was different. Try searching for the thread to make sure you quote the right legislation. Actually, I think I've got the document saved so I'll just look it up and be right back.....
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Sep 17, 3:47 PM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The signage displayed on the Land/Site has no planning/advertising consent, which is required under the [in England: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) [In Wales The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2012]. The signs are an “advertisement” under the definition in the Regulations.

    [England: Regulation 30] [Wales: Regulation 27] makes it a criminal offence to display advertisements (which these signs are) without the relevant consent. The local authority has confirmed that the signs have no planning/advertising consent (see email confirming the Council Planning Department is investigating and the list of all applications concerning the land printed from the Council's planning portal).

    That's copied and pasted from the relevant section of my Skeleton - for convenience I amended it so that others could adapt it depending on whether the parking was in England or Wales.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 25th Sep 17, 3:48 PM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    still not received my directions questions or anyting else from the court as yet which seems odd?
    Originally posted by wi3347

    It takes a good couple of weeks
    You could phone the court to ask why you haven't had it if it's been more than 3 weeks?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Sep 17, 3:56 PM
    • 51,687 Posts
    • 65,339 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Download one from the courts webpages - easily Googled 'N180 Directions Questionnaire'.
    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.

    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 26th Sep 17, 3:45 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Perfect. Thanks LOC very helpful! I did include a bi about the LR to make it relevant. Also mentioned the 2012 act so luckily got the right one.

    If I don't have anything in the next few days I will contact the court.

    When / if I receive a reply on my drop hands offers I will mention the DPA stuff. If they don't write back I could always write again saying something like "I note your failure to reply etc etc. I would further make it clear that I will also be making a claim from breach of DPA etc etc etc". Word it all properly obvious but just so you get a general ideal
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 26th Sep 17, 3:51 PM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The trouble with Millennium is that they use Gladstones only to do the initial work to issue the claim. They appear in court themselves, without a solicitor (their offices are yards from the court and it saves costs to do it in house). So you can write and write to Gladstones but I think the letters just essentially get ignored.
    In my case they served a Notice of Acting in Person, taking Gladstones off the record. I think by then I'd just started ignoring Gladstones and writing direct to Millennium.


    Try writing to Millennium with a copy of the letter you've sent to Gladstones, and in that letter mention the DPA claim.
    Dear Sirs,
    I enclose a copy of my letter to your solicitors, inviting you to withdraw your claim. Please note that if you proceed and do not succeed (which I cannot believe you will) then I will be pursuing you for damages for breaching my rights under the Data Protection Act.
    I look forward to hearing from you etc.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 26th Sep 17, 10:57 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Ahh that's good info, cheers!

    I will write to millennium direct if I don't have a reply by Friday and then I will add a cover letter along with the original letter to gladstones so it covers all bases.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 2nd Oct 17, 6:42 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    nothing from the court of gladdys / millenium. Email sent to the court requesting they sent the directions questions. Letter sent direct to millennium with a cover letter mentioning the DPA breach claim.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 17th Nov 17, 12:13 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Hello everyone,

    After what feels a long wait I've received a letter from the courts. It says having viewed the papers the court believes the case is suitable for
    Mediation.

    Failing that I have to submit my defence bundle by the 11th of December. Court date set for 19th of January.

    Do we think it's worth going down the mediation route? Nothing to loose I suppose. Could offer a small amount to cover their expenses plus a small profit. For example £20. I'd rather that and be done with it than have to bother with the whole bundle and I'd rather avoid another day in Swansea civil justice centre after the absolute idiot of a judge I had last time. My luck I'd have him again
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Nov 17, 12:19 AM
    • 51,687 Posts
    • 65,339 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do we think it's worth going down the mediation route? Nothing to loose I suppose.
    Nope, not usually, but bearing in mind that Judge at Swansea...arrgh, ''rock and hard place''!

    Could offer a small amount to cover their expenses plus a small profit. For example £20.
    They won't accept so it is pointless, in reality, they'll demand 3 figures.
    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.

    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 22nd Nov 17, 10:41 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Nope, not usually, but bearing in mind that Judge at Swansea...arrgh, ''rock and hard place''!

    They won't accept so it is pointless, in reality, they'll demand 3 figures.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thats what im thinking about the judge. Would it normally always be the same judge that deals with parking cases though? Id rather pay £100 at mediation than close to £300 if i have him again. I dont think id get a win past him, especially after last time. Ive applied for mediation and will update with the result of that.

    In the mean time i will be starting my witness statement, Any advice? Will obviously include all the things mentioned in this thread.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 22nd Nov 17, 11:17 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    should i be writing my witness statement more like a letter? or numbered paragraphs like my defence, making reference to my defence and expanding on it?

    im a bit confused.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 22nd Nov 17, 12:57 PM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Witness statement is written in first person ("I", "me" etc) unlike the Defence. It is your story, based around the facts. You tie those facts into your defence points.


    I haven't refreshed my memory on your defence, but I recall the issue over land ownership and authority to operate.


    Are you defending as keeper or driver?


    Assuming driver, I'd start with a para saying something like I own the vehicle registration number x. I was driving the car on the relevant date and parked it [location]. Exhibited hereto marked WI1 [WI being your initials] is a google map on which I have marked the relevant points, and to which I will refer. The location where my car was parked is marked "A" on the map.


    My defence is based on [3] issues:
    1. that the C has no authority to operate on the land in question
    2. set out other issues


    Then deal with each in turn. in respect of 1 you would say that the C claims to have authority to operate at Metropole Chambers. Then refer to exhibit WI2, a Land Registry plan, which shows that Metropole chambers is just the building, not the street. Mark this in red outline on your google map and refer to that too. Then refer to the info given to you by the Highways Dept of the LA stating that it is adopted highway, and refer to exhibit at as WI3. Mark the street in blue outline on your map and refer to that too. Then say "Therefore, it is clear that the location where the car was parked (marked A on the map) is not part of Metropole Chambers, it is public highway, and the Claimant cannot have any authority to operate there and to issue parking charges.


    Then run through your other defence points.


    If you are defending as keeper, you need to state at the start that you were not driving on the day and produce some evidence that third parties are entitled to, and do, drive your car. If you have evidence you weren't driving that day, produce that (eg text messages, emails, a letter from your boss). Then you need to talk about POFA and how they have not complied with it because they served the NtK on x date whereas under para x of Schedule 4 it should have been served by y date, so you cannot be held liable as keeper.


    If you are claiming unclear signage, you would mark on map A where the signs were and exhibit photographs showing that they are unclearly positioned and are illegible, relevant to where the car was parked, that there was no entrance signage etc etc.


    So you're talking about facts, but tying them into your defence points.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 22nd Nov 17, 8:07 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Witness statement is written in first person ("I", "me" etc) unlike the Defence. It is your story, based around the facts. You tie those facts into your defence points.


    I haven't refreshed my memory on your defence, but I recall the issue over land ownership and authority to operate.


    Are you defending as keeper or driver?


    Assuming driver, I'd start with a para saying something like I own the vehicle registration number x. I was driving the car on the relevant date and parked it [location]. Exhibited hereto marked WI1 [WI being your initials] is a google map on which I have marked the relevant points, and to which I will refer. The location where my car was parked is marked "A" on the map.


    My defence is based on [3] issues:
    1. that the C has no authority to operate on the land in question
    2. set out other issues


    Then deal with each in turn. in respect of 1 you would say that the C claims to have authority to operate at Metropole Chambers. Then refer to exhibit WI2, a Land Registry plan, which shows that Metropole chambers is just the building, not the street. Mark this in red outline on your google map and refer to that too. Then refer to the info given to you by the Highways Dept of the LA stating that it is adopted highway, and refer to exhibit at as WI3. Mark the street in blue outline on your map and refer to that too. Then say "Therefore, it is clear that the location where the car was parked (marked A on the map) is not part of Metropole Chambers, it is public highway, and the Claimant cannot have any authority to operate there and to issue parking charges.


    Then run through your other defence points.


    If you are defending as keeper, you need to state at the start that you were not driving on the day and produce some evidence that third parties are entitled to, and do, drive your car. If you have evidence you weren't driving that day, produce that (eg text messages, emails, a letter from your boss). Then you need to talk about POFA and how they have not complied with it because they served the NtK on x date whereas under para x of Schedule 4 it should have been served by y date, so you cannot be held liable as keeper.


    If you are claiming unclear signage, you would mark on map A where the signs were and exhibit photographs showing that they are unclearly positioned and are illegible, relevant to where the car was parked, that there was no entrance signage etc etc.


    So you're talking about facts, but tying them into your defence points.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Ahh i see, thank you for that, thats very helpful! i will get some work done over the next few days and post a first draft here.

    Im defending as keeper, I have good proof of where i was at the time the PCN was issued.

    The other points will be that the location is a public highway and i will be adding the land registry maps and email chain from the council in support of this. And the signage being small, poorly lit, hard to read etc which i have taken photographs of. The signage is prohibitory anyway, it says no parking, permit holders only. From what ive read that means there can be no breach of contract as no contract was ever offered? and its a matter of trespass. please correct if im wrong?

    My thought process is, hopefully based on the council info and the LR maps that should be enough to get it over the bar as they have no grounds to bring the claim. Failing that, i have proof i wasn't the driver they must rely on the POFA. My defence against this will be the issues around signage mean no contract was offered to the driver.

    If it all goes totally wrong at least i should only end up paying £100 as it states in POFA the maximum amount claimed can only be the amount on the original NTK.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 22nd Nov 17, 9:02 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    ok so far i have:

    Claim number: Dxxxx

    In the County court at Swansea.

    Between: Millennium door and event security LTD – Claimant
    And
    xxxxx – Defendant

    I am the defendant in this matter and submit the following as my Witness statement in relation to the above claim.
    My defence is based on 3 main issues:
    1. The land the PCN was issued on is a public highway, meaning the claimant has no authority to operate on the land in question.
    2. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but was not driving it on the date of the alleged contravention.
    3. The signage at the location is inadequate for multiple reasons. It is prohibitory and does not offer a contract to bind the driver into paying any monies.

    I have conducted research following receipt of claim which shows that the land the PCN was issued on, Salubrious passage, is a public highway maintained by the council of the City and County of Swansea. Meaning the claimant has no authority to enforce parking at the location and therefor no basis or foundation to bring the claim. I produce exhibit xx1, an email chain between myself and the highways department of the Swansea county council. In this email it is confirmed that “Salubrious passage” is an adopted public highway, maintained by the City and County of Swansea, making it public land.
    The notice to keeper I received lists the address of the alleged contravention as “Metropole Chambers, Salubrious passage”. Exhibit xx2. I have applied to the land registry office for the boundary map of “Metropole Chambers”. The map supplied by the Land Registry office shows that the Metropole Chambers boundary line is the building alone and not any of the land outside. I produce the LR map as exhibit xx3.
    At the time of writing this statement I am yet to have knowledge of any documents provided to the court in support of the application, accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. A further Land registry search shows that the landowner is a company registered in Sweden. I produce the LR deed as exhibit xx4. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millennium Door and Event Security to enforce parking at the location in any case.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 22nd Nov 17, 11:11 PM
    • 734 Posts
    • 1,360 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Nope. That's basically just another defence.

    If you were across the other side of town having your hair done, say so.

    If there are 15 insured drivers on the car say so.

    Then you might want to say, "having been named as defendant in this matter, I visited the area on x date and obtained the photos at exhibit abc1. Unless the claimant has recently changed the signage, I believe this to be the signage at the material time."

    Then deal with poor signage.

    Then explain your enquiries regarding the land and append the land registry/council stuff. Try and keep this to what you said and did.

    The chain of contracts stuff inmho goes in a skeleton argument not a statement, because that is a legal argument - but the divide in small claims track cases is a blurry one.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 22nd Nov 17, 11:22 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Yes, what I've got there is just for point 1 of the statement, I haven't come onto the other 2 parts yet. That's just my first go at point 1 for opinions.

    I can take out the contracts part if the opinion is it's not adding value. It is mentioned in the defence already after all
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Nov 17, 9:03 AM
    • 1,144 Posts
    • 1,172 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Your WS is a set of facts
    A defence is a series of arguments.

    If you find yourself arguing - "I am not liable because" being an argument - then it doesnt really belong in the WS.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 11:10 AM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I, [name] of [address] WILL SAY as follows:


    1. I am the defendant in this matter and submit the following as my Witness statement in relation to the above claim.
    My defence is based on 3 main issues:
    A. The Claimant had no authority to operate on the land in question because it is in fact land the PCN was issued on is a public highway, meaning the claimant has no authority to operate on the land in question.
    B. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but was not driving it on the date of the alleged contravention. I cannot be held liable as keeper because the Claimant did not comply with the strict requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    C. In any event, no contract was offered by the Claimant. Its The signage at the location was inadequately displayed and its wording for multiple reasons. It was prohibitory and did not offer a contract which can have bound to bind the driver into paying any monies.
    In this Statement I shall deal with each aspect of my defence in turn.



    A. No authority to operate

    2. Exhibited to this statement at XX1 is a google earth map showing the area where the vehicle was parked on the day in question, and at XX2 is a bundle of email correspondence between me and the Local Authority's Highways Department. The location of the car is shown marked with a red "A" on the map.


    3. After receiving notification of the alleged charge, I contacted the Local Authority to enquire whether the road on which the car was parked (Salubrious Passage) was in fact public highway. I have conducted research following receipt of claim which shows that the land the PCN was issued on, Salubrious passage, is a public highway maintained by the council of the City and County of Swansea. Meaning the claimant has no authority to enforce parking at the location and therefor no basis or foundation to bring the claim. I produce exhibit xx1, an email chain between myself and the highways department of the Swansea county council. In this email. I refer to the email at page x of XX2 in which the council it is confirmed that “Salubrious passage” is an adopted public highway, maintained by the City and County of Swansea, making it public land.


    4. The notice to keeper I received lists states the address of the alleged contravention as “Metropole Chambers, Salubrious passage”. In addition to my correspondence with the local council, I also took steps to establish who owns the "Metropole Chambers", and the extent of the land ownership, where it is claimed the car was parked. At exhibit XX3 is a copy of the Land Registry Official Copy Register Entries and Title Plan for title number CM......., which is Metropole Chambers. The landowner is a company registered in Sweden. As for the extent of the land owned, the LR Title Plan clearly shows that the land comprised in the title consists of only the building and no land outside it. Exhibit xx2. I have applied to the land registry office for the boundary map of “Metropole Chambers”. The map supplied by the Land Registry office shows that the Metropole Chambers boundary line is the building alone and does not include any of the land alongside it outside. I produce the LR map as exhibit xx3. . I have marked the extent of the land ownership on the map at XX1 with a blue outline and hatching. I have also marked on it the public highway with green outline and hatching.


    5. The Claimant, who is not the landowner, has produced no documentation to show how it asserts that it has authority to operate on Salubrious passage alongside Metropole Chambers, where the car was parked. The documents produced in XX1-3 clearly demonstrate that it cannot have such authority. Absent such authority it is not entitled to offer any contract on the land, to issue charges in relation to such contract, nor to enforce such charges.

    At the time of writing this statement I am yet to have knowledge of any documents provided to the court in support of the application, accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. A further Land registry search shows that the landowner is a company registered in Sweden. I produce the LR deed as exhibit xx4. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millennium Door and Event Security to enforce parking at the location in any case.

    Originally posted by wi3347
    I've had a bash at this. You'll get the drift I think.
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

4,461Posts Today

8,847Users online

Martin's Twitter