Claim Form from County Court and No LBA from Gladstones

fellsider

Fruitcake wrote: »

I don't have time to read it all in detail, but there are a number of typos that need sorting out, so you need to carefully proof read and edit it.

Thanks I'll get onto that.

peter_the_piper

Nice to see the sign does not require a driver to put the ticket in the windscreen with the printed side visible.

fellsider

[IMG][/img]

In the final demand (which has inexplicably risen to £125 from £100) there is this paragraph.
Can forumites give their views on this.
To me it seems quite threatening and meant to scare people.
Is this kind of thing allowed?

Also it mentions that it will be passed to a debt recovery agency but it wasn;t. It went straight to Northampton.
I am trying to fine pick as much as I can for my defence.

Coupon-mad

I am trying to fine pick as much as I can for my defence.

Good! Preparation at this stage is key, as well as later in your Witness Statement and evidence and finally at any hearing. We have not seen a Gladstones case lost that has had a forum defence, so far this year, nor have any actually proceeded as far as a hearing yet.

I would include the fact you were sent threatening and misleading demands implying that a 'local' debt collection agency would be involved (the suggestion being calling round like bailiffs) adding further charges on top of the inexplicable £125 demanded with no evidence. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

I would change this point as IMHO 'failing to identify the creditor' is weak as an argument about the NTK. There is a stronger one that's right there (the missing 28 day period), So, I say remove this:

2 c) The claimant also failed to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

I would suggest instead:

2 c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

And re this question, the answer is yes, definitely call them out for any missing information or evidence:

Should I mention in it that the initial PCN stated that no ticket was displayed even though the claim gives no details of this?
The driver insists that a ticket was displayed but I have no proof of this.
ES Parking have not produced photographic evidence of this although this has been requested.

Whilst they might later produce a photo of the front of the car, you can see how unfair this would be to ambush you later, having not shown the evidence when you first contested the charge (before proceedings commenced). You can say that to withhold relevant photos of the car's windscreen and dashboard and the signage terms (despite you asking specifically at the outset of what appeared to be a spam letter) is against the SRA Code as well as contrary to the 'overriding objective' in the pre-action protocol. As Gladstones are a firm of Solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week, there can be no excuse for these omissions.

Oh, and remove this because you can't argue 'no GPEOL' as it hands the PPC the simple rebuttal of waving the Beavis case at the matter which might turn a Judge's head:

5) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The terms of that contract cannot be enforced for the following reasons:

(a) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;

fellsider

I think I've managed to incorporate your suggestions and reworked them into my statement. Does it read any better?
I'm sure there will be more that I can add but is it looking promising?
Thanks again.

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:

1). It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the
time of the alleged incident.

2). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.

a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the
strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for
the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent
signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered
keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the
'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

3) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) 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.
d) The Defendant asks the Court that they Strike out the claim entirely as there has been no Cause of
Action disclosed.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.

4) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage
terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as
contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladsones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private
parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

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.

Alternatively the Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.

4). ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they
do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to
bring this case.

a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has
failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the
location in question

c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its
contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any
charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.



5) The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has also ignored the Government’s official position on parking
charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking
Charges:

a) The Defendant submits that the amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the
Claimant’s loss.

(b) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150.

c) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the
keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

6) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach.



7) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties
and no contract was established.

(d) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to
the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and
accessible.

8) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery
action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which
suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further inexplicable
charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.


9). The Defendant would like to point out that that this car park does not offer a free parking period


10) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
a) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an
alleged £100 debt.
b) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
c) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.



I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!

Coupon-mad

Remove the double request to strike out, you have that twice so remove the first one or it looks pushy and the Judge may not like it!

Changes here, remove ANYTHING about loss:



5) [STRIKE]The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has also ignored the Government’s official position on parking
charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking
Charges:[/STRIKE]

a) [STRIKE]The Defendant submits that the amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the
Claimant’s loss.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE](b)[/STRIKE] The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost plucked out of thin air and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the
keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

6) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign does not create an obligation as to how to 'validly display' the ticket in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' as required under Schedule 4 of the POFA.
d) In the absence of 'adequate notice' of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent lettering such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.


I could not see the usual thing Gladstones defences have about the incoherent particulars chucked out by a Judge recently - you need that near the end like you see in other G's defence examples recently.

fellsider

Here is my latest revision.
I have also found these and wonder any of them would be relevant regarding the incoherent particulars.
Unfortunately the information for the Exeter and Southampton cases is a little limited and I'm not sure how to pull more information from them

1
On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’

2
DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the Gladstones-like particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered MIL to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out. 190816

3
Similar cases with lack of particulars of claim struck out
exeter case struck out. 19th march 2015
southampton case 24th aug 2015
However this is all I can find out about this (from Parking Prankster)

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

1). It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.

a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

3) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) 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.
d) The Defendant asks the Court that they Strike out the claim entirely as there has been no Cause of Action disclosed.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice beforeissuing proceedings.

4) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.

Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladsones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

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.

Alternatively the Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

4). ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that theydo not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no losswhatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

5)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost plucked out of thin air and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

a) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

6) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.

c) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.



7) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

(d) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and
accessible.

8) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recoveryaction would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further inexplicable charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.


9). The Defendant would like to point out that that this car park does not offer a free parking period


10) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
a) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
b) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
c) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.



I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!

Coupon-mad

Your numbering needs a check - you have two points #3 and two points #4.

Remove this as advised previously:

d) The Defendant asks the Court that they Strike out the claim entirely as there has been no Cause of Action disclosed.

...because you are later (near the end) asking for a strike out which is in a better position in the defence. Don'y appear pushy, don't ask twice.

I would not mention struck out cases from 2015 as that's a long time ago. I would suggest changing 'the Gladstones-like' to 'very similar parking charge' and remove the company name MIL and replace it with 'the Claimant in that case'.

Amalgamate #8 and #10 as they look like they are talking about exactly the same thing; no need for repetition. Also (my fault as I added part of this) you have the phrase 'out of thin air' twice so remove one, remove repetition throughout.

As for this point, if you are saying this bit because you want to distinguish the case from the Beavis case, then maybe continue the sentence like this:

9). The Defendant would like to point out that [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, signs and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking [STRIKE]period[/STRIKE] licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst this Claimant has withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are poorly positioned and illegible, with terms hidden in small print, very unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract that in Beavis, led to a finding that any driver was 'bound to have seen' the parking charge.

fellsider

Thanks again coupon-mad.
I hope I've corrected the errors and omissions. Apologies for you having to repeat things and for making this more intensive for you.
I have uploaded the Preston case and I'm not sure exactly which is the relevant date. Is it when he sat 27/7/2016 or the judgement date 19/08/2016?
Also 3e do I omit the word 'roboclaim'?




Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:

(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the
time of the alleged incident.

(2).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the
strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for
the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent
signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered
keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the
'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

(3)
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) 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 Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

(4)
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.

(5)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage
terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as
contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private
parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.

(6).
ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they
do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to
bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has
failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the
location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its
contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any
charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost
with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4
specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the
keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and
contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen,
therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under
Schedule 4 of POFA.
d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent
letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements
of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(9)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.

(a) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to
the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and
accessible.

(10)
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery
action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which
suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained
charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an
alleged £100 debt.
d) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) he Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details,
facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there
any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty
rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant
withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden
in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to
have seen'.


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.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!

Coupon-mad

'Roboclaim' is fine IMHO, tells the Judge exactly what this is, in case he.she was half-minded to take Gladstones seriously.

I think that's fine except for the typo:

As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body

...and you might want to re-read IamEmanresu's post #6 because his wording is great and can be used verbatim at the start of a defence.