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
    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 1st Sep 17, 1:33 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    mikrussell
    SIP Gladstones Court Order
    • #1
    • 1st Sep 17, 1:33 PM
    SIP Gladstones Court Order 1st Sep 17 at 1:33 PM
    Found this court order at the bottom of a pile of letters today. I've been on holiday so I missed it unfortunately. I assume its too late to do anything about it at this stage? It was issued on 9th August. Any help would be appreciated.
    Last edited by mikrussell; 01-09-2017 at 3:54 PM.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 1st Sep 17, 2:42 PM
    • 14,952 Posts
    • 23,477 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 1st Sep 17, 2:42 PM
    • #2
    • 1st Sep 17, 2:42 PM
    You should urgently contact the Northampton County Court and ask their advice as you seem to have missed the deadline to acknowledge service of the document and you'll possibly now have a default judgment against you. That's 'trouble' with a capital T.

    You should also remove your link as it is showing both your claim number and your password.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 1st Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    • #3
    • 1st Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    • #3
    • 1st Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    I'll get in touch ASAP currently closed. Wont the CCJ be removed if paid within 28days?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Sep 17, 6:02 PM
    • 16,098 Posts
    • 20,153 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 1st Sep 17, 6:02 PM
    • #4
    • 1st Sep 17, 6:02 PM
    yes it will, or you can get it set aside with £255 and a suitable form

    there was another thread on here this week about a similar issue , albeit for 2 court orders, not one
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 1st Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    • #5
    • 1st Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    I'll get in touch ASAP currently closed. Wont the CCJ be removed if paid within 28days?
    Originally posted by mikrussell
    Is there a CCJ? Maybe not yet.

    If not, then acknowledge the claim on MCOL, NOW (as explained in the NEWBIES thread post #2) and show us your defence, based on all the others that win.

    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.

    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 2nd Sep 17, 9:40 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    • #6
    • 2nd Sep 17, 9:40 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Sep 17, 9:40 AM
    But it clearly states on the website within 14days? Should I file a defence anyway?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    Well no that's not what I said.

    DO WHAT I SAID.
    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.

    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 3rd Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    • #8
    • 3rd Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Sep 17, 4:09 PM
    done!


    Here is my defense. Sorry if it is not great. This is the first time I have had to do anything of this nature.




    I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

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

    2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Bootle Street, Manchester. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.”

    3. 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/2016.
    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.

    4. 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.
    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.

    5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

    Rebuttal of Claim

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

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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 figures plucked out of thin air 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:
    11. 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.

    12. 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 for breaching the
    terms of parking on the land at Bootle Street
    Manchester.
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
    is the Keeper of the Vehicle
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
    indemnity costs if applicable, together with
    interest of £4.88 pursuant to s69 of the
    County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
    to Judgement at £0.04 per day


    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Sep 17, 5:03 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 3rd Sep 17, 5:03 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Sep 17, 5:03 PM
    Remove #3; personally I see no point in the examples that repeat the Claimant's claim reasoning, which is without merit and bears no repetition which almost looks like you are saying they 'fully complied' with the IPC CoP, etc. No need to repeat their case. State yours only!

    In #12, for the same reason, why repeat their particulars, I would remove that quote.

    I realise this is copied from an earlier one but it's not perfect. For example, nowhere near the start do you actually give any background as to why the driver didn't display, argued that they did pay (if they did) or explained that they saw no signs at all, so didn't pay and display. You can't leave the Judge guessing, the situation needs explaining, to an extent.

    But decide now if you are defending this as the driver, or as the keeper and not saying who was driving. Your defence needs to be consistent and it's not quite. For instance, you mention the POFA 2012 which protects keepers only, then you say this which says you were the driver (to me):

    8. 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.
    Then - having done that pruning - look at the style of Johnersh's defence as linked in the NEWBIES thread, which is different from yours because it's an ''own space'' case. So whilst you can copy some of the preliminaries, you can't use all of it (primacy of contract is not applicable to you in a public PDT car park), but you can copy the overall style and headings, to make it flow better.
    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.

    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 4th Sep 17, 2:28 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    Amendments made. Hopefully this is better





    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.




    Background


    3.It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.


    4. The car park was completely unlit on the time and date in question. The terms and conditions of parking were unreadable. It was not made clear that this was a pay and display car park.


    5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Bootle Street, Manchester. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.”

    6. 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.
    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.

    7. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

    Rebuttal of Claim

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

    9. 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.

    8. 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.

    10. 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 figures plucked out of thin air 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:
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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






    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 17, 11:14 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Much better!

    It flows better and you've decided to defend as the driver so you can talk about the unlit signs (go and get some photos in the same darkness, as evidence for your Witness Statement stage).
    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.

    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 19th Sep 17, 2:03 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    Received this letter from Gladstone today. Should I mediate?

    imgur.com/a/Ci3mq
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Sep 17, 2:26 PM
    • 14,952 Posts
    • 23,477 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Received this letter from Gladstone today. Should I mediate?

    imgur.com/a/Ci3mq
    Originally posted by mikrussell
    What exactly does the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 2 tell you about how to deal with this letter?

    (Clue - it tells you exactly how to deal with it, we just can't keep re-typing the same old stuff day after day!).

    That part of the sticky needs to be your Bible to see you through all stages of the court claim against you. Please read it thoroughly so you know what is likely to come next, and how you deal with it.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Sep 17, 11:03 PM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Or just read any other Gladstones Court thread. Everyone gets that letter - search this board for Gladstones N159 and you will find several threads talking about it, and the next stages.
    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.

    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 5th Oct 17, 1:24 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    Thanks I have sent the form
    • mikrussell
    • By mikrussell 5th Oct 17, 1:27 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mikrussell
    My Second Gladstones Case
    Here is my second defence for overstaying a car park by 10 mins were I had paid.
    I hope this one is appropriate.

    1. I am the Defendant, Mr Michael Russell, .....6, and reside at ........ and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of 26/03/2017

    2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

    3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
    It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

    4. The Defendant therefore disputes the amount claimed, as it comprises excessive and non-contractual elements, and additional costs must be proved.
    The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.

    The Defendant also has a good faith belief that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. The solicitor has been incompetent and is not due £50. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

    Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court

    a) Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging.
    b) The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50.
    c) The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

    5. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a letter to the claimaints solicitor and have received no response.

    6. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

    7. The Claimant did not comply with the Part B, section 15.2 of the IPC Code of Practice regarding 'grace periods'. No Penalty Charge Notice was issued and the claimant strongly denies overstaying a period of 10 minutes.

    8. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace.
    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.

    9. 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’
    10. ) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

    14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    15. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void, or in the alternative the following terms are either not transparent or are unfair, and these terms are not binding on the consumer, for the following reasons. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that the Court has a duty to consider the fairness of the terms.

    16. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. In the event that a trespass claim is brought by the Claimant, the Defendant parked on land where parking was invited and paid for full authority to park. Trespass cannot therefore apply. Furthermore, the Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have a contractual or proprietary right to occupy or possess the car park per Hill v Tupper [1863] 2 H & C 121; the landowner has not assigned rights to enable the Claimant to pursue a case under the tort of trespass. In any event, the Defendant’s sole liability would be damages in favour of the landowner. Per the Supreme Court in the case of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), trespass is limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


    17. The damages clause is a penalty. The signage provides for a parking charge of £100 if the terms and conditions of parking are breached. The Claimant seeks £150 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable.

    18. Applicability of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
    a) The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Beavis case is applicable.

    b) This case is not supported by any similarity in the circumstances or signage. Mr Beavis refused to pay a charge of £85 for overstaying a permitted period of free parking in a car park at a retail park. The signs displaying this information were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. The notice stated ‘2 hour max stay… Failure to comply … will result in a Parking Charge of £85.’ Mr Beavis exceeded the time limit by one hour but declined to pay the charge and maintained the term which sought to impose the charge was an unfair term. The Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence.
    c) In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis the Supreme Court recast the test to be applied when seeking to distinguish a liquidated damages clause from a penalty clause. To engage a penalty the question was whether the relevant provision was “unconscionable” or “extravagant” (Lord Hodge at [221]). The full test was expounded by Lord Hodge (at [255]).
    d) The Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge to the Defendant of £150 is evidently extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract.

    The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

    The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
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

1,105Posts Today

6,864Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin