Parking nightmare. is it too late?

whitewabbit

Hi all
have searched through loads of Newbie posts and info and still need to ask a few questions....
Not looking good from what ive learnt but here is the story so far...
Parked and overstayed back in May... genuinely unaware that there was a time limit (didnt see the signs) purchased from the store in question ( have receipt ) got pcn in post (within time)
showing photos and times of arrival and exit. Wrote to them explaining the circumstances....admitted it was me by explaining i had shopped in the store (I know!!).... managed to ignore all of the following letters. felt that the fine was stupidly high... now escalated to CC business center letter. i have acknowledged receipt with moneyclaim.gov and now getting cold feet about the whole process...... i feel that ive not got a lot to loose but the whole going to court thing scares the pants off me. Not feeling confident about my defense....
Premier Park issued the notice and Gladstone is the solicitor
Any advice to settle my nerves......
thanks

pappa_golf

yes , read this: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325 recently written by a person that knows the procedure , do as it says , follow it carefully and you will gain extra time to come back here and research premier park and gladstones

Ralph-y

and ....

please read though the last few weeks of this blog

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

to see how inept gladstones (small case intended) really are .....

Ralph:cool:

whitewabbit

ok ,thanks for your advice so far....
.have now read LOADS and starting to think that i dont have a very stong case due to the fact that i have already admitted being the driver..Doh!! i never challenged the manager of the store at the time (presuming it is too late to try that now?) even though i purchased my lunch from morrisons and still have the receipt......the car park in question is some way away from my home and i am unable to photograph signage etc.... and i did overstay with no other reason than i did not see/read the signs on entry but could not say they were not there either. did not POPLA appeal...... feeling so stressed should i just payup and put it down to experience? i would feel happier going to court if i felt i had a strong case in my favour but looking at the most of the cases that appear before there are none that relate too closely to my situation in that they have none of them admitted being the driver........
are there general defense points that pretty much apply to all cases ?

whitewabbit

This is all i have so far.......

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXXXXXX residing at XXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
3) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

6) This claim merely states: “parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give any 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'. 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'.

7) 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.

8) I believe the term 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.

9) 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.

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

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
12. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. ). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

13) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

14). In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.


15). 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.

16. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and 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.


Any pointers that my help would be appreciated..........................

bargepole

whitewabbit wrote: »

Any pointers that my help would be appreciated..........................

I would lose points (7), (8) and (9). Whilst they may be true, they are simply a general rant against the private parking industry in general, and unless you can provide evidence (other than postings on forums) to substantiate them, the Judge will ignore these as irrelevant to the matter in hand.

The rest of it looks thinner than the low-fat spread on an anorexic supermodel's crispbread, and your best bet is para. (16), and hope you get a judge like DJ Cross who agrees that the claim is not properly pleaded.

whitewabbit

thanks for your time in reading my post
Is it time to pay up then and learn a very hard lesson...........or should i carry on?

Coupon-mad

whitewabbit wrote: »

thanks for your time in reading my post
Is it time to pay up then and learn a very hard lesson...........or should i carry on?

No it is not time to pay - why would you pay £250-odd now, when the most you are risking is to pay maybe £150-£175 if you lose, IF a hearing follows? (which does not always happen). The charge was £100 and they can't (unless you are unlucky with the Judge) add the 'indemnity/debt collector' or however they describe the extra costs.

And when bargepole says the points so far look 'thinner than the low-fat spread on an anorexic supermodel's crispbread' he's not wrong but what has not been said yet is that Gladstones evidence and details are almost always even thinner.

And we've never yet in 2016 lost a defended Gladstones case on this forum. Sleep on it and come back to try to beef this up, with our help.

Like I said, why just pay £250 odd, look what happened to the last person who acknowledged then got cold feet and paid Gladstones over £200:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5539887

Yep, Gladstones are so incompetent that the person got a CCJ anyway...

Fruitcake

whitewabbit wrote: »

thanks for your time in reading my post
Is it time to pay up then and learn a very hard lesson...........or should i carry on?

Don't pay and carry on.

whitewabbit

ok thanks for the encouragement........ i have read the details on the family that got cold feet and paid ....well what a nightmare...... i can see that that really isnt an option now. could someone kindly help me "beef up" my super skinny defense in the next 28 days? should i be compiling any other letters of complaint about the amount of charge at this stage? i am confused......i have read sooooo much information but so much of it does not seem to apply as i was the muppet who responded and told them that i was driving in the first place!!! arrrh

whitewabbit

what i have so far........

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXXXXXX residing at XXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The car park signage was inadequate

Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, based on my knowledge of other Premier signs, I have good reason to believe that the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver.

3) The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;
Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency
(a) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(b) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have good reason to believe that Premier’s signs do not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier shall reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver. In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for drivers to conclude that Premier is one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA.

4) The car park signage did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras
Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. Premier’s signs do not comply with these requirements
.
5) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

6) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

7) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress to me andmy family and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
8) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.
9) This claim merely states: “parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give any 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'. 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'.

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

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

12. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. ). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

13) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

15). 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.

16. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and 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.

How obvious is it that i am not from a legal background and really feel that i am out of depth....will i get ripped to shreds and spat out!!!