We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gladstones County Court Claim Defence
thexyz619
Posts: 18 Forumite
Hi there,
Submitting this defence tomorrow so just wondering whether anyone might be able to give me some last minute feedback. The driver doesn't have a copy of the original PCN and no notice to keeper was issued. I then incorrectly followed advice to ignore the Gladstones LBC on behalf of their client who produced a claim form with an incredibly incoherent particulars of claim. Just wondering whether people might be able to give me advice on anything I've missed.
Cheers.
It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.
1. The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
1a. Under Practice Direction 16, the particulars of claim fails to adhere to 7.1 which states the particulars should include an “identification of the land” on which the offence took place.
1b. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
1c. The particulars of claim also fails to specify where the acts “constituting the conduct were done” in accordance with 7.5. A date is listed within the particulars but fails to list what the offence is related to.
1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.
2. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper. The Defendant refutes that any Notice to Keeper was issued and the Claimant has failed to provide any withstanding evidence that one has been issued.
2a. The failure to issue a Notice to Keeper or supply evidence that a Notice to Keeper has been issued within the particulars of claim as per 4.8/4.9 breach PoFA 2012 under Schedule 4.
2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.
3. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.
3a.As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
“under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
3b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
4a. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
4b. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
5. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
Submitting this defence tomorrow so just wondering whether anyone might be able to give me some last minute feedback. The driver doesn't have a copy of the original PCN and no notice to keeper was issued. I then incorrectly followed advice to ignore the Gladstones LBC on behalf of their client who produced a claim form with an incredibly incoherent particulars of claim. Just wondering whether people might be able to give me advice on anything I've missed.
Cheers.
It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.
1. The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
1a. Under Practice Direction 16, the particulars of claim fails to adhere to 7.1 which states the particulars should include an “identification of the land” on which the offence took place.
1b. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
1c. The particulars of claim also fails to specify where the acts “constituting the conduct were done” in accordance with 7.5. A date is listed within the particulars but fails to list what the offence is related to.
1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.
2. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper. The Defendant refutes that any Notice to Keeper was issued and the Claimant has failed to provide any withstanding evidence that one has been issued.
2a. The failure to issue a Notice to Keeper or supply evidence that a Notice to Keeper has been issued within the particulars of claim as per 4.8/4.9 breach PoFA 2012 under Schedule 4.
2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.
3. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.
3a.As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
“under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
3b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
4a. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
4b. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
5. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
0
Comments
-
should have a statement of truth paragraph at the bottom for a start
0 -
I'll definitely get that in there, thanks! Anything else I can improve / add in?0
-
Take out the bit about GPEOL, Beavis killed that.
How much do they want? Have they charged any legal fees, court fees, interest? Have they mentioned Elliott v Loake? If not they will.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Breakdown is:
£150.00 "parking charge"
£25.00 Court Fees
£50.00 Solicitor Fees
The claim literally says "NAME - DATE - DESCRIPTION (Reg + what I presume is some sort of reference number) - DUE DATE" and then a breakdown of interest.0 -
I've got so little to work with and because I don't have a PCN I can't pick apart any evidence they have against me. They did make reference to the location which the offence took place in the LBC (only documentation I've received) but it was a private road and no longer exists - been demolished for redevelopment purposes.0
-
you can do a part 18 request and also get further details and copies of paperwork further down the line , assuming you are at the initial skeleton defence stage
so your defence needs to encompass what will be relied on later, putting them to evidence and proof and sharing these documents that you are currently lacking
so your initial defence will encompass what might be missing and be insisting the information is shared at a later stage , before the court case is before the judge
reading through other recent 2016 court claim threads will give you these arguments and statments , especially Gladstones ones which are always scant on details0 -
you can do a part 18 request and also get further details and copies of paperwork further down the line , assuming you are at the initial skeleton defence stage
I am just doing that first defence now - with the part 18 request I did see that was a possibility but because I am close to my deadline I don't think I'll be able to include that in my initial defence (need to hand in tomorrow really) - I'll have a browse and see if there's anything else I can include though - thanks for your help!0 -
Search 'Gladstones incoherent' on this board and copy the defence points that use those exact words.incredibly incoherent particulars of claim.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
£150.00 "parking charge"
£25.00 Court Fees
£50.00 Solicitor Fees
The parking charge is at least £50 too much, the court fees are only payable if they win, as is the solicitors fees. They are trying to cheat you.
They are being investigated by the SRA for overcharging so complain to them here
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.pageYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Just need a quick spot of advice regarding direction questionnaires. Gladstones including the standard form where they requested that the case be dealt with on paper as opposed to via hearing.
Filing my directions questionnaire today for both claims, but the court hasn't included a copy of the N159 form within the papers they have served me and only include a default N180 and default mediation forms.
What should I do about sending a form to reject the idea of handling the case via the papers and request a hearing as I haven't been given the opportunity to deny it via the court? Do I need to send something additional to the court?
To make matters more confusing one of these claims has been served via letter from Gladstones and one via e-mail, however all court correspondence has come via letter. The letter Gladstones served includes their copy of a completed N159 form, but the e-mail that was served only includes a default template that a county court judge may decide to send. If anyone could help, that'd be great.
Cheers,
Mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards