AS Parking Perranporth now CCC

bungholio

Afternoon All,

I act on behalf of someone and am currently fighting AS Parking (Athens Security), and their 'Solicitor' Gladstones.

The story:
- Vehicle was parked at Perranporth, Cornwall.
- 5th March 2016 A PCN was received on their windscreen for 'failing to display a valid ticket'
- A valid ticket was purchased, but was flipped upside down in the wind. Still displayed.
- An Appeal was issued to AS Parking 9th March 2016
- No NTK received or correspondence from AS Parking, all Debt Recovery Letters ignored
- 20th July Gladstones issued a Letter Before Claim
- This was responded to, including all evidence, appeals and sent recorded to both Gladstones & AS Parking.
- 8th August 2016 a County Claim Form arrives dated 4th August 2016.

Where do we stand to contest this now?
My thinking is to issue a full defence statement, including all correspondence to the court and request this is to be 'thrown out' as a complete waste of time.

I have copies of all redacted correspondence to upload, however being a newbie this is currently not possible.

Any help appreciated

Redx

not possible for anyone , not just newbies , you have to host them on a 3rd party site

read the court section of post #1 of the newbies sticky thread, plus parking pranksters court guide too

read the bargepole link and make sure you acknowledge online but put NOTHING AT ALL in the defence box

the initial defence is a holding defence, not a full defence , that comes later

Coupon-mad

Acknowledge the claim (in the name of the Defendant of course) then search the forum for 'Gladstones defence' and read at least a dozen examples from recent months. You will see what's what and can then show us your version.

BobJameson

Any standard defence against Gladsones needs to state that the particulars are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action.

Prankster has a relevant example in a recent blog.

bungholio

Thanks for the quick replies all.

My images were already uploaded to photobucket however I still had the error?

Online acknowledgement sent, and nothing posted in the defence.

I'll do some digging this evening searching the forum and revert back.

Thanks again

Redx

the error is telling you not to use a live link , so use a dead link , changing http to hxxp

BobJameson

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Boosted your post count suddenly. Nothing better to do?

I'm waiting for my exhaust to be fixed, and thought I'd dive on here a while.

Is that suddenly a breach of the forum rules?

Coupon-mad

bungholio wrote: »

Thanks for the quick replies all.

My images were already uploaded to photobucket however I still had the error?

You would get an error if you didn't break the link of course. As a newbie you can't post a working link, so break it.

bungholio

Afternoon all,

I've done some research and put together a draft response taking parts from some others.

Please let me know your thoughts on tweaking this

1.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

2. A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the duration of stay in the Promenade Car Park, Perranporth, Cornwall.

**POINT TO ADD RE APPEALS SENT?**

3.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

4.a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.c)
Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.d)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5.
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Horizon Parking Limited. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.


6. 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 ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


7.
If a contract had been formed it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

7.a)
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in an educational establishment where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.


8.
The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost and interest. The Particulars of Claim are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action.


9.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. 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 defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

bungholio

A few images which can hopefully be changed by a regular. My responses have scanned in very badly. I will copy and paste the text from those this evening rather than provide you guys with an awful scan

hxxp://s350.photobucket.com/user/iambungholio/media/CCC%20Letter_redacted_001_zpsfpx7djqz.jpg.html

hxxp://s350.photobucket.com/user/iambungholio/media/Gladstones%20Letter%20Edited%2020.07.16_001_zpsvvvk6ipf.jpg.html

hxxp://s350.photobucket.com/user/iambungholio/media/PCN_001_zpsp8ampiq8.jpg.html
hxxp://s350.photobucket.com/user/iambungholio/media/CCC%20Response%20Redacted_redacted_005_zpsmi6lo10m.jpg.html

System

Take out the reference to Horizon @ 5.

Not sure 7 is expressed the correct way. Beavis was all about "legitimate interest" as UTCCR was kicked out. "Legitimate interest" IMHO was a shading of UTCCR. So 7a is probably closer to the mark