ES Parking Enforcement/ Gladstones Claim Form

Coupon-mad

There's been no response from Gladstones re the Part 18 shocker! This can be included in the defence

You should mention this in the defence bullet points NOW. Search this forum and on pepipoo.com* for 'Gladstones defence' as there are lots of recent examples. You need more in that defence and do not need to write it from scratch, we've had loads on both forums in August.

Try searching 'roboclaims' as that word was used in a couple of recent ones.



*http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

Keezy

SaraB2106 wrote: »

Been doing some researching trying to get a defence together. It is correct that at this stage just bullet points will do?
So far;
1. Water Street is an adopted highway and private contracts governing its use are ultra vires.
2. The area claimed to be private land is not clearly delineated and the notices could apply to the footways.
3. The signs cannot be read by a driver unless they stop to read the signs and park thereby breaching the terms and conditions.
4. The vehicle was not parked in Water Street at any time, stopping does not constitute parking.

There's been no response from Gladstones re the Part 18 shocker! This can be included in the defence further down the line correct?

Hi Sara, I'm going through an almost identical case, same place, same company and have court papers, I'm just wondering what you mean by "Part 18" ?

Coupon-mad

Keezy wrote: »

Hi Sara, I'm going through an almost identical case, same place, same company and have court papers, I'm just wondering what you mean by "Part 18" ?

Google search 'BMPA Part 18' or merely search this forum for Part 18.

SaraB2106

Hi Keezy,

Part 18 is simply a request for further information regarding the claim. The details on the claim form are too vague therefore you should email the solicitors requesting further information.
If they don't reply (which they haven't to me) you can then use that in your defence.

Good luck, I'm submitting my defence in the next couple of days.

parkingwoes_2

SaraB2106 wrote: »

Hi Keezy,

Part 18 is simply a request for further information regarding the claim. The details on the claim form are too vague therefore you should email the solicitors requesting further information.
If they don't reply (which they haven't to me) you can then use that in your defence.

Good luck, I'm submitting my defence in the next couple of days.

Draft this up first mind on here as the first attempt was not adequate enough

Gladstones will not typically respond to a Part 18 request and whilst there is debate as to whether this is worth while, it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

A claim form should provide enough detail for the Defendant to respond and submit an adequate initial defence.

In my opinion, it is more relevant to highlight this fact that the particulars of claim are too deficient in this respect and show no cause of action and the claim should be struck out ab inhitio. The Defendant should also request that further points can be added when fuller details are known, if the claim is not struck out. Add by all means that you have submitted a part 18 request but that the Claimant's solicitors have failed to respond.

What is the address on the claim form for Gladstones, as they moved offices in September, this is of course their responsibility to advise Defendants of the change of address for service of documents.

SaraB2106

1.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.
2.
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.
2.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.
2.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.
2.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.
2.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.
3. 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 ES Parking Enforcement 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.
5.
The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were
capable of being read and/or form a contract. There is no
prominent signage at the entrance of the street. Other signs are
raised high up with small text which is difficult to read. The
signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of
Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose requirements
they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed
with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice'
of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the
POFA.
6. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50
solicitor cost. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in
disclosing no cause of action.
7. 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 contacted the claimant's solicitors requesting
information on the parking charges as a Part 18 Request for
Further Information. The claimant has not responded. 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.

Keezy

Thanks Sara,

Can you remember what you put in the part 18 ? I think it seems worth sending one while writing my defence.

I can't really critique your defence as I'm not as experienced as the other people here, but I'm working on the same thing and mine will be very similar especially mentioning their inability to distinguish between driver and keeper according to POFA 2012 and their terrible "signs" on the street footpaths which aren't visible at night, also not making it clear at the entrance, or anywhere else, to a driver that it is a private road, indicating illegal predatory tactics.

I've been back since to take photos and always see cars parked there, it really is a trap, which people would easily avoid with clear signage.

Coupon-mad

Keezy wrote: »

Thanks Sara,

Can you remember what you put in the part 18 ?

Why not read other ES Parking Enforcement threads?

Search this forum for 'ES Gladstones claim part 18' or similar (obviously never include the word 'parking' in a search of this parking forum!).

@keezy and @sara:

DO NOT REPLY TO ANY PRIVATE MESSAGE HERE FROM A POSTER OFFERING TO 'HELP' IN ANY WAY.

We help on threads but the regulars here will not pm you secretly, so delete any private message if you get one from a poster with less than 1000 posts. But do name and shame them first here - they could even be from a parking firm.

Keezy

Hi Sara

Have you had your court case yet ?

Quentin

Keezy wrote: »

Hi Sara

Have you had your court case yet ?

Sara not logged in since September.


Try a PM and she may get an email alert and come back