Defence help. Gladstone taking me to court for a parking charge.

Britton

Hi fellow MSE forum frequenters! Please could you support and advise me on my next steps in regards to defending myself against what it seems from reading are a bunch of chancers/cowboys. I've ignored parking tickets and comeback off of holiday to a letter from gladstones giving me 14 days to respond and a county court summons following this (I was away for 23 nights). I've done some reading but i'm getting bogged down in all the info! I've acknowledged the claim online to active the 28 days and spent the last week or so trying to sign up to the pepipoo forum but to no avail (2 sign ups and an e-mail to a contact I found on the site). So here I am, last post 7 years ago however an avid MSE and e-mail browser!

What's my next steps? The parking place in question is at the gym I go to, I have a permit for this gym however there is allocated space for this gym, the information over the years around parking has been vague and has changed at various times, including the gym opening access to spaces in a lot across the road and when asking staff about tickets in the past ive been told to ignore them. Another point is that my partner is also a member of the gym and has access to the car.

The actual claiment is SIP parking ltd. The car park itself is a mutlistory affair, unkept and unsafe, often with people sheltering in it, drinking and using as well as soliciting sex (actually seen someone in the act so intoxicated they didn't notice 4 people walking straight towards them!) My wife actually said she'd feel unsafe to walk in the lower part if she had to in the evening, which kind of gives you an idea. It also makes me think that there is very little chance this ticket is enforcable, especially to the amount of 228.59.

The issue is im unsure on my next steps? I'm thinking go take pictures of the signage? evidence i'm a member at the gym maybe? How much do I actually have to include in the initial defence? Is it essential I go all guns blazing on every point or could I pick one such as the rediculous costs putting a percentage in of the actual parking costs? Is there a way to see what evidence they have and if they can actually prove who was driving rather than just aiming at the registered keeper? Sorry if this is really obvious and i'm pretty sure elements will have been answered before, I've tried to do some background reading but become overwhelmed taking different elements from slightly differing situations!

Any help much apprieciated!

Coupon-mad

spent the last week or so trying to sign up to the pepipoo forum but to no avail (2 sign ups and an e-mail to a contact I found on the site)

Well don't use a hotmail email addy...pepipoo do not allow them...

What's my next steps?

Search this forum for 'Gladstones incoherent' and find defences already written about any of their recent efforts (e.g. I wrote one in bigsej's thread and it's pretty generic and adaptable to suit any case).

Taking photos of the signs is useful but no rush because the first defence is bullet points, not exhibits (so no attachments, no photos, no printout of Schedule 4 of the POFA, not yet).

Britton

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well don't use a hotmail email addy...pepipoo do not allow them...

Search this forum for 'Gladstones incoherent' and find defences already written about any of their recent efforts (e.g. I wrote one in bigsej's thread and it's pretty generic and adaptable to suit any case).

Taking photos of the signs is useful but no rush because the first defence is bullet points, not exhibits (so no attachments, no photos, no printout of Schedule 4 of the POFA, not yet).

Thanks for the guidence! I'll have a scout. Take it they don't allow gmail either?!

Coupon-mad

My email is gmail and I'm on pepipoo! How odd, but try another one.

Emanresu sums up Gladstones approach (and BW Legal's approach which is the same):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109022&st=20

''Gladstones appear to have decided to throw any cases, even irrelevant one, into the court system. For £15 they get the courts to frighten people and get £250 back - better than Wonga.''

Britton

Right folks, I've had a scout and I've had a tinker, if any kind ladies or gentelman could have a read and advise that would be great, tried to alter bits so they have same content but feel more personalised to me if that makes sense, I think i've got the jist of most points but will do more reading once past this stage! my 28 days runs out on the 11th I think. Here goes;


1) 1. It is admitted that the defendant, George off of Rainbow residing at xxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2) 2. The vehicle has a gym member parking permit and it is regularly parked in the ******** car park, both myself and my wife are long term members at the fitness centre, evidence of this can be provided.
3) 3. I am yet to have sight of any documents provided to the court in support of the application. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. It merely provides a date, amount and due date. The claim also states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which give no 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'.
4) 4. I note the absence of;
a. clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim
b. details to evidence any contract created or a copy of the same
c. details as to the described sum of 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.
5) 5. No evidence has been supplied by the claimant as to who was driving the vehicle at the time the alleged charges were incurred. I have also not seen any photographs and on subsequent investigation of the car park there is no indication that cctv/photographs are being taken. As per 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. As previously stated both me and my wife are both members at the gym which grants permission to use the parking facilities.
6) 6. 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.
7) 7. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. I also question the claimant’s authority to bring this claim (if any debt exists, which is denied), as they are not the landowner.
8) 8. It is not believed that the claimant has incurred additional costs. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
9) 9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of similar generic claims put before the court in the absence of enquiries as to whether there is a valid cause of action. I understand from my research that HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims which appear to be against the public interest, a waste of court time and 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.
1010) 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.
1111) I request the court strike out the claimfor 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''.
1212) The alleged debt as described in the claim is an unenforceable penalty, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
1313) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

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


(does that sound right? Any bits I should add/remove? All help and support much apprieciated!

The_Deep

If there is anything to complain about in the solicitor's letter, overcharging, misleading, threatening, Elliott v Loake, complain here

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page

They are already being investigated for several unsolicitory acts, have probably had hundreds of cpmplaimts made against them, so one more will not hurt, it may even be the final straw.

Please feel frr to use some of my letter.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5509488

Coupon-mad

Defence looks spot on as a draft. You need to remove the double-numbering which is perhaps a formatting issue on the forum.

I would suggest just a few additions to give yourself a bit more to argue at a hearing later:

- There have been no documents served with Gladstones pre-court letter but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to fulfil the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA. This includes fully-compliant documents being served, adequate notice of the terms and 'parking charge' in large prominent lettering and proof of the existence of a 'relevant contract' and a 'relevant obligation' (as defined in the Act). The Defendant denies that any such requirements were met.

- I believe the Claimant claims they are authorised by the Gym. The Defendant claims the same and indeed has formed a prior agreement by virtue of the permit supplied by the Gym, which has no mention of a parking charge. There is variable (indeed ambiguous) allocated parking space for this Gym. The information over the years around parking has been vague and has changed at various times, including the Gym opening access to different spaces at different times.

- The Defendant relies upon the prior contract agreed with the Gym several years ago which permits parking and the Defendant asserts that the terms that the Claimant is now trying to impose are incompatible with that agreement. The Defendant further relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, since (in addition to the prior contract which granted permission to park) the Gym has issued verbal instructions more than once, to the effect that when asking about unfair parking tickets we have been instructed by Gym staff (this Claimant's principal) to ignore them.

- This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which centred around an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis (unlike the Defendant in this case) had no prior overriding agreement with the landholder and was known to be driver who saw and read the brief terms and was held to have entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

- In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other 'legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question'. The true test was held to be 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation'.

- There can be no 'legitimate interest' in penalising longstanding, permit-holding Gym members. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' for a third party to fine drivers who are already authorised by the Gym. The burden rests with the Gym and this Claimant to ensure that there is a system under which established Gym members are not inconvenienced by the presence of a parking firm nor charged as if they were trespassers.

- A third party parking firm cannot claim a charge under the guise of trespass in any case (Beavis is the authority which supports this contention). If the Claimant later suggests - despite the lack of Particulars - that the car was 'unauthorised' then this is not only factually incorrect but the only remedy for such trespass would be for the landowner to seek nominal damages in their own name. There are no damages arising in this case.

- The Claimant does not own the car park and has no interest in it so they lack any legal standing. Unlike in Beavis, which was 'complex' and the decision confirmed by the Supreme Court as unique to the facts in that case alone, this Claimant provided no service to the driver, nor could the Claimant have made any parking offer imposing different terms than already agreed with the Gym many years before.

Britton

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Defence looks spot on as a draft. You need to remove the double-numbering which is perhaps a formatting issue on the forum.

I would suggest just a few additions to give yourself a bit more to argue at a hearing later:

- There have been no documents served with Gladstones pre-court letter but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to fulfil the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA. This includes fully-compliant documents being served, adequate notice of the terms and 'parking charge' in large prominent lettering and proof of the existence of a 'relevant contract' and a 'relevant obligation' (as defined in the Act). The Defendant denies that any such requirements were met.

- I believe the Claimant claims they are authorised by the Gym. The Defendant claims the same and indeed has formed a prior agreement by virtue of the permit supplied by the Gym, which has no mention of a parking charge. There is variable (indeed ambiguous) allocated parking space for this Gym. The information over the years around parking has been vague and has changed at various times, including the Gym opening access to different spaces at different times.

- The Defendant relies upon the prior contract agreed with the Gym several years ago which permits parking and the Defendant asserts that the terms that the Claimant is now trying to impose are incompatible with that agreement. The Defendant further relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, since (in addition to the prior contract which granted permission to park) the Gym has issued verbal instructions more than once, to the effect that when asking about unfair parking tickets we have been instructed by Gym staff (this Claimant's principal) to ignore them.

Thanks, you are a star! I'll add them, although I think i'll merge them 2 last points into one as its not the gym who own it/claiming, its the actual parking organisation on behalf of the land owner, however the ambiguaty over the years is a good point and gladstones probably won't have a clue about the set-up if it was brought up in court!

Yes the formating was me, the numbers didn't show so added them to hep with feedback, soon as I posted they appeared!

Coupon-mad

I've just edited in some more!

The point about mentioning the Gym a lot is to hit home that your agreement from years ago, was with the Gym and prevails/supersedes any new 'contract' this scumbag is trying to hold you to. And I doubt the permit when it was provided had any accompanying terms which said you had to pay £100 to ScumbagsRUs.

Britton

The permit was literally a small piece of card with the gym logo on and my reg! There is absolutely zero chance this setup knows what is doing, absolute chancers all way through, watch them win! :mad:

Coupon-mad

Britton wrote: »

The permit was literally a small piece of card with the gym logo on and my reg!

Good, that's the point. The Gym did not include any term about £100 charge and you came to an agreement, a meeting of minds, when they handed that over and you accepted it.

A parking firm can't bolt on random crap afterwards and pretend it was incorporated into your permit agreement. Was this particular parking firm even on site at the time when you and your wife accepted the permit?

There is absolutely zero chance this setup knows what is doing, absolute chancers all way through, watch them win!

I don't think so. We have never seen a Gladstones defence we've provided even get past GO - none have gone to a hearing; they've been dropped. So far...and I am certain the others have a better than 90% chance of the consumer winning, if a hearing happens later on, in all our Gladstones defended cases.

And the wider picture which shows you have inept Gladstones are in cases that DO end up at a hearing, read the Parking Prankster's Blogs going back over the Summer, a laugh a minute! NONE lost v Gladstones.

Watch you win!