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
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 21st Nov 17, 12:53 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 1Thanks
    pandorapandora
    Help Please! Parking Fine County Court Pack
    • #1
    • 21st Nov 17, 12:53 PM
    Help Please! Parking Fine County Court Pack 21st Nov 17 at 12:53 PM
    Hi all

    I wondered if someone could please give me some advice?

    Last winter I paid to park in a S.I.P private car park for three hours for Christmas shopping. After shopping we went for something to eat - the restaurant was heaving (Xmas!), food hadn't arrived yet and I only had half an hour left on my parking, so I rang up the above company (premium rate line - cost me more than the extra hour of parking!) to pay. The customer service lady wanted me to read out my card number - as I was surrounded by strangers, I asked if I could pay online instead. She gave me the website and the location number (I checked it twice with her!). I then went to the website, paid for the hour and then got back to the car and had a ticket! I just presumed they hadn't checked their computer system and had gone by the physical ticket on the windscreen which had expired 20 mins before, so wasn't too concerned. I then forgot all about it until (I think March/May) I got a letter. I rang up, couldn't get through to a human so I emailed them explaining the above and that I'd paid for the extra hour. I received an automated response but heard nothing back from a human, so thought they'd accepted my explanation.

    Two months ago I received a letter from their solicitors asking me to pay a whopping fine or to send any defence, which I did. I got a copy of my phone bill showing the £4 call to them on the date (half an hour BEFORE the ticket expired), along with a copy of my bank statement showing the payment of £4-ish for the extra hour coming out of my account. The solicitor replied saying I have paid the wrong company - Manchester Parking NOT S.I.P! I rang S.I.P and was given the location number by S.I.P. - checked twice!

    My colleague has advised me that the parking company's own customer services number probably routed through to a national call centre (Pay By Parking) as many of them do; so the woman has probably given me the wrong location code.

    A week later I've now been sent a county court pack asking me whether I wish to pay £250, acknowledge or defend. I'm so annoyed because I've done nothing wrong for this but I'm very anxious about the prospect of a CCJ as this could affect my job.

    Can anyone please advise? Do I get a solicitor? I've never had anything like this or so much as a speeding ticket before so this is giving me sleepless nights.

    Thanks
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st Nov 17, 2:50 PM
    • 1,186 Posts
    • 1,231 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 21st Nov 17, 2:50 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Nov 17, 2:50 PM
    NEWBIES thread
    No solicitor
    You MUST IMMEDIATELY GO ONLINE, click "acknowledge", defend in full, do not contest jurisdiction unless you live outside England and Wales.

    Then go back and read newbies thread, post 2.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Nov 17, 4:21 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 21st Nov 17, 4:21 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Nov 17, 4:21 PM
    go through this SIP court thread too

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5649649

    they won in court yesterday on signage issues

    so if you read that one and try to do something simiular to what they have done , you will be better prepared seeing as it was a 2017 case from start to finish over several months
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Nov 17, 4:53 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,779 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 17, 4:53 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 17, 4:53 PM
    I'm so annoyed because I've done nothing wrong for this but I'm very anxious about the prospect of a CCJ as this could affect my job.
    Forget about a CCJ. You only get one of those that could have a negative impact (mainly on credit rating, but sometimes on jobs) if you lose at court, costs are awarded against you and you then fail or refuse to pay the costs awarded by the judge in the timescale he has given.

    All completely within your own control.
    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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Nov 17, 5:52 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 17, 5:52 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 17, 5:52 PM
    as above

    if it goes to court and you lose , PAY , IN FULL , within 28 days , no CCJ , no issues at work

    its not paying the court order which causes the CCJ to be recorded, as its effectively contempt of court
    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
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 21st Nov 17, 7:03 PM
    • 176 Posts
    • 293 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 17, 7:03 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 17, 7:03 PM
    As above :

    If it gets as far as court and the claim is upheld it would cost you less than the £250 they are asking for.
    How have they bumped up a max £100 parking charge to a claim for £250?

    Two months ago I received a letter from their solicitors asking me to pay a whopping fine or to send any defence, which I did. I got a copy of my phone bill showing the £4 call to them on the date (half an hour BEFORE the ticket expired), along with a copy of my bank statement showing the payment of £4-ish for the extra hour coming out of my account. The solicitor replied saying I have paid the wrong company - Manchester Parking NOT S.I.P! I rang S.I.P and was given the location number by S.I.P. - checked twice!
    Who are the solicitors, Gladstones? Did you receive a 'Letter Before Claim' and when?

    Also on your bank statement who does it say you paid the £4 too. AFAIK there isn't a PPC called Manchester Parking (perhaps someone can confirm this), although companies house do have records for a 'Manchester Parking Ltd' but they are listed as a non trading company. There isn't a company with that name who are an approved operator of either the BPA or IPC.
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 23rd Nov 17, 11:21 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    • #7
    • 23rd Nov 17, 11:21 AM
    • #7
    • 23rd Nov 17, 11:21 AM
    Hi

    In reply, yes it is with Gladstones.

    On my bank statement it says 'MANCHESTER CC -PAR' at a cost of £3.10.

    Thanks for clarifying about a CCJ - was stressing about that with work.

    I did receive a letter a couple of weeks ago - not sure if it was a 'Letter Before Claim' - would need to check when I get home from work. Husband opened it as I had complete anxiety about it (I know their envelopes now) - it had gone up to £160 then.

    The £245.14 on their claim form is £160 for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, £10.64 at 8% pa, £25 court fee, £50 legal representative cost.

    I will go through all those suggested threads tonight.

    Thanks so much
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 12:15 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #8
    • 23rd Nov 17, 12:15 PM
    • #8
    • 23rd Nov 17, 12:15 PM
    do your phone records show the actual number you called, and can you show that this is the advertised number for SIP (or the number on the P&D machines/signage for you to call). if so, not your problem, you complied with the T&Cs.


    Don't panic, you seem to have a good defence


    Don't be hurried into filing your AoS - you don't need to file it for 14 days. It's important to wait because you now need to read up and educate yourself to give yourself some much needed confidence. Knowledge is power. If you file the AoS early, that's 2 weeks less time for research/acquiring knowledge and preparing your actual defence.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 23rd Nov 17, 12:25 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 23rd Nov 17, 12:25 PM
    • #9
    • 23rd Nov 17, 12:25 PM
    On my bank statement it says 'MANCHESTER CC -PAR' at a cost of £3.10.
    Originally posted by pandorapandora
    That looks to me like an abbreviation for Manchester City Council - Parking.
    .
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 23rd Nov 17, 2:54 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    Hi Keith

    I did at dinnertime because someone on here said to do it immediately.

    I do have the phone records - they clearly show I rang SIP parking's telephone number at a premium rate for over 3 minutes - I also have a Google screenshot of that number belonging to SIP Parking.

    As instructed by SIP's customer service rep I then went onto the pay by phone website. The website said my reg was registered with them but I did not remember my password for their website so had to request that - I have the text showing this password request dated/timed BEFORE THE TICKET EXPIRED too.

    I paid for an hour using the location number provided BY SIP on their call and then that was that.

    Gladstones said something along the lines of 'thanks for the evidence you KINDLY' provided - this clearly shows you did not pay my client'. I paid who SIP told me to pay!

    Do I try and get a copy of the call recording?

    Evidence wise I have:

    Phone company statement screenshot sent to me by EE showing the call to SIP Parking
    Google screenshot confirming that it was SIP that I called
    Photos from Google streetmaps of the car park I parked in (not sure why I've done that but I have)
    Bank statement showing the money coming out of my account
    I can also go on the Pay by Parking website and that shows the car park payment too.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 3:23 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Right then the error is theirs, the number must take you to some central place that acts for other companies too. But that's not your fault. You did precisely what you were told to do.


    Someone else had this recently (Hayles-something was the username) - although from memory she'd paid the pcn charge, not for the parking, but it's the same principle. The parking company claimed that they hadn't had payment and she could clearly demonstrate they had. Eventually they pulled their heads out of their a***s and worked out that she had indeed paid and then they withdrew (forgetting about her counterclaim).


    You just defend as driver, saying you paid by way of a P&D display and then topped it up for an hour by phone, prior to the expiry of the P&D ticket. Therefore you complied with all contractual terms.


    You have demonstrated to the C that you paid and are not responsible for any internal error which means they cannot marry up your payment to your car.


    The charge was clearly wrongly made, and the proceedings have no basis.


    Counterclaim for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act and for a breach of your Data Protection Act rights. I think again Hayles's thread is a good place to look. You must tell them that you are going to counterclaim if they proceed. I'll look now for Hayles's thread and post a link here.


    Then in your WS you provide all of this evidence you have and say you cannot explain why they cannot trace the payment, but there's clear evidence you made it.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 3:24 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    How long ago was it and were you told the call was recorded? In which case, yes, ask for the recording.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 23rd Nov 17, 3:29 PM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5724756&page=4


    The OP got her counterclaim
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 23rd Nov 17, 3:40 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    Gladstones have had all of this evidence already and still just said 'you did not pay our client' - you need to therefore pay us £160. I think they think that people will just be scared into paying them regardless, and though I have thought about that because it is giving me bad anxiety, I don't want to do that on principle because I've done nothing wrong. It was SIP that gave me the location number, I double checked it, so their mistake not mine if it wasn't correct!
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 23rd Nov 17, 3:42 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    It was last December and unfortunately I can't remember if they told me calls were recorded or not.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 24th Nov 17, 9:26 AM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Don't pay it. This is what PPCs and the solicitors do. They just keep plugging away and many people pay up, even those who start off defending because they are scared of going to court.


    I don't underestimate the stress of going to court, but if you read court reports on other threads it is ALWAYS reported to be far less stressful than anticipated.




    In civil cases, the burden of proof is "the balance of probabilities" (as opposed to criminal, where it is "beyond all reasonable doubt"). So it doesnt' matter if there isn't a recording (and there probably won't be one after all this time, even if it was originally recorded). Your evidence is that you called, were given the location code, and followed all instructions to pay. You can show you called the correct number, so any mistake is at their end.


    The judge is more likely to believe you, the person who was there on the day and made those calls and can prove payment, rather than someone from Gladstones/a hired gun/someone from the PPC who was not the other person on the phone to you that day. To get over your defence they'd have to prove you were lying or mistaken and you are neither.




    Tell them if they want to counter your evidence they must produce witness evidence from the operator you spoke to on the day.
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 5th Dec 17, 7:25 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    Hi Keith

    I've tried to be Miss Marple and been told that the 5-digit location number I was provided with on my call to SIP is for a row of on-street bays on Port Street - they said on their system it just shows as 'Port Street Manchester' with no other details. The SIP car park I parked in runs between Port Street/Tariff Street and so that's where the telephone rep has gone wrong... They said there are 3 locations on Port Street and 5 on Tariff. If I'd have made a typo rather than them making an admin error, the chances of me hitting a 5-digit location number on one of these streets must be one in 10,000 or something...

    Am writing my defence letter for court pack now, will read the newbie thread as advised and I'll post it on here first to see what you all think

    Thanks again!
    • pandorapandora
    • By pandorapandora 5th Dec 17, 11:44 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    pandorapandora
    Proposed Defence Statement
    Hi all - I've put together my defence draft - could you please have a read and let me know what you think?

    Thanks again!


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    SIP PARKING LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXX XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    1. I am XXX, Defendant in this matter. My address for service is XXXX. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

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

    3. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a xxxxx, registered number xxxx. and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

    4. 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 of parking on the land at Tariff St Manchester” by the driver of the above vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX.

    5. The Defendant:
    a) Paid for parking by way of a ‘pay and display’ coin machine and displayed the produced ticket in the windscreen of the above vehicle on the date in question.
    b) Called the Claimant directly by telephone, prior to the expiry of the Pay and Display ticket, and was provided with the location number for the car park to enter onto the ‘Pay By Phone’ website in order to pay for an extra hour’s parking.
    c) Contacted ‘Pay By Phone’ prior to the expiry of the Pay and Display ticket to request a website password in order to pay online.
    d) Completed payment online using the details as advised by the Claimant, again prior to the expiry of the Pay and Display ticket.
    e) Therefore complied with all contractual terms.

    6. In response to a ‘Final Reminder’ letter from the Claimant, the Defendant clearly demonstrated to the Claimant via email on 24/03/2017 that payment had been made on the date in question, enclosing evidence of the request made at 1:34pm (before expiry of the ticket at 2:08pm) for a password from the ‘Pay By Phone’ website in order to make payment, and evidence via bank statement and statement from the ‘Pay By Phone’ website of the subsequent payment to ‘top up’ parking covering the hour of 2:01pm to 3:01pm. An automated response to this email from the Claimant was received, but no further correspondence regarding the issue.

    7. Following receipt of another standardised letter from the Claimant, the Defendant telephoned the Claimant to check if the previous response had been received, and was advised to resend the previous email, which was resent as requested on 24/05/2017.

    8. Correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitors Gladstones was then received in July. In response, the Defendant sent the above evidence plus an excerpt from a telephone bill provided by the Defendant’s mobile telephone network EE on 24/07/17, clearly showing the call (as mentioned in 5b above) made to the Claimant’s income-generating direct telephone number) at 1:41pm, lasting 5 minutes and 43 seconds at a cost to the Defendant of £3.11.

    9. The telephone conversation at 1:41pm was held by the Claimant and Defendant in plenty of time before expiry of the purchased parking time at 2:08pm in order to obtain appropriate details required for the Defendant to make appropriate payment. The Defendant is not responsible for any internal errors made by the Claimant causing inappropriate information to be provided resulting in the ‘top up’ payment made by the Defendant not marrying with the actual location of the car.

    10. Documentation received from the Claimant’s solicitor states:
    a) That the Defendant exceeded the time for parking that had been purchased.
    b) That the Claimant accepts that the Defendant did pay for parking, as evidenced by the bank statement provided by the Defendant
    c) That it was an obligation of the terms and conditions of parking that the Defendant paid the Claimant – SIP Parking Ltd – not Manchester Parking.

    11. 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/20XX.

    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 terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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

    g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.

    12. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of “exceeding the time for parking” was communicated to me nor was it within my control. Even if a contract was potentially formed it was frustrated by the human error of the Claimant, and it is trite law that no party can be held liable for breach to another under such circumstances of frustration of contract.
    b. There was any agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    f. The Pay by Phone website, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', complied with the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which says:
    ''Confirmation of distance contracts:
    16.—(1) In the case of a distance contract the trader must give the consumer confirmation of the contract on a durable medium.
    (2) The confirmation must include all the information referred to in Schedule 2 unless the trader has already provided that information to the consumer on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of the distance contract.
    (3) If the contract is for the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium and the consumer has given the consent and acknowledgment referred to in regulation 37(1)(a) and (b), the confirmation must include confirmation of the consent and acknowledgement.''

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

    Rebuttal of Claim
    14. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make a ‘top up’ payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.

    a. Payment for parking was made online on the Pay By Phone website.

    b. This is a distance contract which requires certain information to be supplied in advance.

    c. The service makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display.

    d. The Defendant followed the Pay By Phone website instructions using location information as provided by the Claimant over the telephone.

    e. The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.

    f. The error of the Claimant in providing the correct location number for the payment service is not the Defendants responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
    In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

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

    16. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the demanded amount or to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    17. The amount demanded of £170.64 is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council for parking after the expiry of paid for time at a Pay and Display bay, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

    18. 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.
    d. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
    e. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.
    f. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
    The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

    19. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £1 for a valid one hour parking charge to £170.64. 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 £1 for a valid one hour parking charge to £170.64. 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:
    20. 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.

    21. 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/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Tariff 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 £10.64 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
    to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

    22. 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.

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

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed:

    Date: XX/XX/XXXX
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Dec 17, 12:13 AM
    • 1,757 Posts
    • 2,873 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I'll do a bit of work on this tomorrow.
    The detailed facts and chronology need to come out and they will later on go in your statement. The actual defence relating to those facts is that you did pay for the parking and therefore complied with any t&cs and any breach was brought about by their error. So that part of the defence should actually be very short.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Dec 17, 12:16 AM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    It looks like you've got all the pertinent information in there but it's too long and a little repetitive. Parts of it read more like a WS.

    See if you can sharpen it up by making your points in a clear concise manner and cutting out the bits you don't need such as where you summarise the claimants case.

    A good effort just needs a little tweaking
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

616Posts Today

4,528Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's Twitter poll: Do you always use soap (if available) while washing your hands after going to the loo in a public toilet?

  • RT @mark76stewart: Sledging!? I?ll say! That?s worse sledging than the Aussies @MartinSLewis !! £6.99 each or 2 for £20 @WHSmith ?? https:?

  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • Follow Martin