Do I have a case or shall I just pay it? Galdstone letter

Coupon-mad

Here is a recent one on pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109208

and 'Gin and Milk' has just (tonight) after some blood, sweat & tears, made a sow's purse out of a pig's ear after some encouragement and she's realised the defendant is her husband, not hers to defend but his (she would have blown it!):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5533125&page=3

The working email currently is this one, to submit a defence.

Put the claim number in the subject line along with 'DEFENCE STATEMENT':

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


HTH

Umkomaas

and 'Gin and Milk' has just (tonight) after some blood, sweat & tears, made a sow's purse out of a pig's ear after some encouragement and she's realised the defendant is her husband, not hers to defend

Hahaha. :rotfl: Like it. Quite slik CM!

Coupon-mad

I'll leave it like that - a new phrase has been created!

I blame the bottle of wine me & my OH just shared!

hopsfield

Thanks Coupon-mad!
I have now updated as per your comments.
Will try and email it tonight (thank you for the email as well)

Here's the updated version. Is this ok? - Is it good idea to mention payment from pay by phone? Point 4.
Thank you for any comments

1. It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle not the defendant was not the driver.

2. The claimant has failed to file enough information in the Particulars of Claim to establish a cause of action that enables the Defendant to prepare a specific defence, i.e for Trespass, a Contractual ‘unpaid fees’ or a Breach of Contract. The Defendant is therefore forced to cover all three possible grounds for the claim. This has caused significant distress and denies the Defendant fair chance to defend the claim in an informed way. The claim merely states: ‘parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. 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’. The Defendant asserts that, in any case, the claim is without foundation. The claimant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred a £50 solicitor cost.

3. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and understand. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which SIP is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence this is not the case.There is a sign after the car park entrance, but the terms and conditions are unclear as it is placed at an awkward angle and difficult to read. The sign is easily obscured by larger vehicles making it impossible to see.

4. The Defendant submits a prof of VAT receipt for the vehicle - License No XXXXXX showing that a payment for the period of 10hrs parking -dated xxxxxx has been made via PayByPhone App. Therefore The Claimant cannot have a genuine loss in revenue.

5. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs, and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sum and that those sums formed part of the parking contract formed in the first instance.

6. 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.

7. I believe 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. 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.

8. I respectfully 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 less than both claims). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12. 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.

13. I request the court strike out the claim XXXX 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."

Fruitcake

Line 1 of the quote does not make sense.

Fruitcake

Typo in line 4. Proof, not prof.

Fruitcake

Line 8.

I would suggest adding that the parking companies lobbied government to allow keeper liability stating that it would reduce the load on courts. The exact opposite has happened. Private parking court cases have gone from a few hundred pre-POFA 2012 to tens of thousands per year.
At best, the parking companies got it drastically wrong and are therefore proven to be not fit for purpose, or they lied.

Fruitcake

Line 13.

I believe some more cases have been thrown out because pre-action protocol has not been followed, and/or the claims made have been incoherent.
Gladstones are surely aware of this and therefore to continue with your case constitutes unreasonable behaviour.
I think you may therefore be able to ask for punitive costs, although I can't remember what it is called.
One of the judges recently actually said they wish they could have awarded higher costs to the defendant because the claim was made late. Was that a hint that higher costs can be awarded for unreasonable behaviour if asked for?

hopsfield

Thanks for the comments. I would pick up the spelling mistake in my autocorrect before sending (hopefully )
As for the rest - my updated version attached. I was trying to put in words what you suggested. Forgive me but English is not my first language.

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

2. The claimant has failed to file enough information in the Particulars of Claim to establish a cause of action that enables the Defendant to prepare a specific defence, i.e for Trespass, a Contractual ‘unpaid fees’ or a Breach of Contract. The Defendant is therefore forced to cover all three possible grounds for the claim. This has caused significant distress and denies the Defendant fair chance to defend the claim in an informed way. The claim merely states: ‘parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. 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’. The Defendant asserts that, in any case, the claim is without foundation. The claimant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred a £50 solicitor cost.

3. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and understand. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which SIP is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence this is not the case.There is a sign after the car park entrance, but the terms and conditions are unclear as it is placed at an awkward angle and difficult to read. The sign is easily obscured by larger vehicles making it impossible to see.

4. The Defendant submits a proof of VAT receipt for the vehicle - License No XXXXXX showing that a payment for the period of 10hrs parking -dated xxxxxx has been made via PayByPhone App. Therefore The Claimant cannot have a genuine loss in revenue.

5. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs, and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sum and that those sums formed part of the parking contract formed in the first instance.

6. 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.

7. I believe 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. 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.

8. I respectfully 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. Government was convinced by the parking companies lobbies that allowing keeper liability will reduce the load on courts. The exact opposite has happened. Private parking court cases have gone from a few hundred pre-POFA 2012 to tens of thousands per year.

9. 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.

10. 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 less than both claims). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12. 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.

13. I request the court strike out the claim XXXX 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’. I would also like to point out that Gladstones are aware of this and therefore to continue with this case constitutes with unreasonable behaviour. Therefore due to my personal and work time begin affected I will have to ask for punitive costs to be added.


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

Fruitcake

That looks alright to me, but I am not an exert.

Some of it is not how someone would write if English was their first language, but it makes sense and it looks more believable and realistic that it is your own words.
I like it that way and I would leave it as it is. :T

I suggest you now wait for the experts to comment.