LBC Gladstones Euro Parking Services

ilikebiscuits

Thanks for the replies Coupon-mad, IamEmanresu, Ralph-y.

The particulars were sparse, they only contained the following: date of PCN, license plate number, PCN number, amount of alleged debt, due date of alleged date, and the calculation of the interested owed on alleged debt.

I looked at the other defences you suggested Coupon-Mad and a couple more I found, and I've come up with the following draft defence. Please let me know what you think and if I need to alter it. Again I really appreciate your help, and sorry for my late reply I've been overloaded with work recently.

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

6) This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

7) 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. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term 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. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest 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.

10) 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.

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

12) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is much less than the claim).

13) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

14) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, and rights of way, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

16) If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged events were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17) In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

18) One of the two PCNs occurred in a pay and display car park which only 3 months previously was a free to use car park. The signs warning the public of the changeover were woefully inadequate and practically non-existent.

19) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

20) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.

21) In the absence of cooperation from the Claimant’s solicitor I had to contact the DVLA myself for information regarding why my details were released to the Claimant. They provided copies of their data requests, two in total (one for each PCN), which showed that in both requests the Claimant provided the wrong addresses of the parking incidents. This proves the Claimant failed to provide the necessary reasonable proof needed to release my details, and it is surely a breach of the Data Protection Act to provide false information to acquire a keeper’s details in order to chase an alleged debt. As such my liability as keeper of the vehicle is voided, and I am not liable for any alleged debt.

22) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

23) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

I assume your PoC did say these exact words you have copied:

''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable''

I assume this was a residents' (block of flats?) car park as you've copied this which relates to residents' rights:

and/or the existing easements, and rights of way,

You could make this more vague to tie in with what you've said about the PoC being incoherent:

18) As far as I can ascertain given the vague PoC, one of the two PCNs vaguely mentioned (yet with no location, contract nor contravention set out) appears to perhaps relate to a pay and display car park which only 3 months previously was a free-to-use car park. The signs warning the public of the changeover were woefully inadequate and practically non-existent, which contravenes the IPC Code of Practice which applied at the time.

Your defence covers all the bases I can think of in your case but do check it is all relevant, as above.

ilikebiscuits

Thank you Coupon-Mad.

Yes the PoC contained those exact words I copied.

No it wasn't a residents' car park, it was a private piece of land for the one PCN (the other PCN was for a pay-and-display car park which used to be a free-to-use car park). Thank you for pointing this out, I amended my defence at point 15 as follows:

15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

Thanks for the alteration to point 18, I put it into my defence.

My amended defence 2nd draft is below, if you think it's ok as it is I will send it off via MCOL either today before work, or tomorrow morning after work if it needs further amending.

If by any chance it is too large for the online form as others have found, what are the email addresses I have to use to send it in?

Defence 2nd draft:

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

6) This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

7) 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. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term 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. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest 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.

10) 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.

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

12) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is much less than the claim).

13) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

14) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

16) If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged events were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17) In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

18) As far as I can ascertain given the vague PoC, one of the two PCNs vaguely mentioned (yet with no location, contract nor contravention set out) appears to perhaps relate to a pay and display car park which only 3 months previously was a free-to-use car park. The signs warning the public of the changeover were woefully inadequate and practically non-existent, which contravenes the IPC Code of Practice which applied at the time.

19) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

20) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.

21) In the absence of cooperation from the Claimant’s solicitor I had to contact the DVLA myself for information regarding why my details were released to the Claimant. They provided copies of their data requests, two in total (one for each PCN), which showed that in both requests the Claimant provided the wrong addresses of the parking incidents. This proves the Claimant failed to provide the necessary reasonable proof needed to release my details, and it is surely a breach of the Data Protection Act to provide false information to acquire a keeper’s details in order to chase an alleged debt. As such my liability as keeper of the vehicle is voided, and I am not liable for any alleged debt.

22) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

23) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK.

Re emails, HO87 says he advises people to copy to both, just in case:

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

and

ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

ilikebiscuits

Thank you Coupon-Mad. I submitted my defence today. It just about fit into the MCOL online form so I didn't need to use the emails in the end. I will be back to update and ask for advice when the next step of the process is underway. Thanks again!