PCN in Poole, UK CPM, DRP Ltd, Gladstones, County Court Papers received

Coupon-mad

I had a quick skim-read and saw mention of 'loss' which I would remove because the Beavis case removed this argument:

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

I would be much clearer in a point about the sign being on the bottom of a door, utterly unreadable and nothing like the clear and prominent terms in the Beavis case. State that the driver did not see any sign at all, it was hidden and this matter has all the hallmarks of 'rogue ticketing' contrary to their Code of Practice in all respects.

I didn't see anything clearly stating this is public highway under a Local Authority Traffic Order, therefore a private parking company is in serious breach of their code of practice and DVLA KADOE contract to try to issue a 'charge' anyway, which is unlawful.

Brain$torm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I had a quick skim-read and saw mention of 'loss' which I would remove because the Beavis case removed this argument:


I would be much clearer in a point about the sign being on the bottom of a door, utterly unreadable and nothing like the clear and prominent terms in the Beavis case. State that the driver did not see any sign at all, it was hidden and this matter has all the hallmarks of 'rogue ticketing' contrary to their Code of Practice in all respects.

I didn't see anything clearly stating this is public highway under a Local Authority Traffic Order, therefore a private parking company is in serious breach of their code of practice and DVLA KADOE contract to try to issue a 'charge' anyway, which is unlawful.

Okay, I'll make those changes. Thanks:T

Coupon-mad

I see your preliminary matters cover some good ground about the Council land issue. Nice.

Brain$torm

So here is the second draft:

[FONT=&quot]Preliminary matters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The claimant doesn’t have the right to issue parking tickets on the land in question, as it isn’t ‘private property.’ Borough of Poole enforces Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that therefore, the restrictions have a Traffic Regulation Order. Ashley Road is deemed a Public Highway under the Highways Act 1980, including the forecourt in question, and comes under the authority of the local council. The claimant has been reported to the DVLA regarding this matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Dawood vs Camden Council 2009, the judge ruled that Dawood owned the subsoil marked on the deeds, but the Tarmac surface above was subject to public access, and as there was no physical barrier between the road and the Tarmac strip, parking restrictions controlled by the council did apply. The same ruling was made in White v City of Westminster 2000.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is a public highway under a Local Authority Traffic Order; therefore a private parking company is in serious breach of their code of practice and DVLA KADOE contract to try to issue a 'charge', issuing this ‘parking charge’ was an unlawful act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’, and as such, is against the public interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.1 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed’ £5000’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) Those which are incoherent and make no sense.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Statement of Defence[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) The Claimant did not identify the driver.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similarparking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UK Car Park Management Limited 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) The Claimant is put to prove 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 PCN charge climbed from £100 to £150, £160.96 including interest. £50 ‘solicitor’s costs’ and £25 ‘court issue fee’, £25 ‘judgment costs’, £100 ‘warrant issue fee’, £2.25 ‘solicitor’s costs for issuing warrant’ have also been added to the claim. The claimant's solicitor should be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court. I have the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid, and due to the sparse particulars, the £25 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The signage was hidden in a ‘predatory’ position and inadequate to form a contract with the motorist [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a). The sign is in a ‘predatory’ position, hidden at the bottom of the shop door, not at eye level, making it hard to see and utterly unreadable. It is also facing inwards every time the shop door is opened. The sign wasn’t seen at all by the driver and is nothing like the clear, prominent terms in the Beavis case. This matter has all the hallmarks of ‘predatory tactics’ and 'rogue ticketing', contrary to their Code of Practice in all respects.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an IPC breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) The sign mentions a permit, but does not contain an obligation as to how to validly display the permit, or what kind of permit is required, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please see enclosed images of the sign and premises at 234 Ashley Road, and the Beavis sign, to support the above points.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Predatory tactics were used.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a). A shop worker wearing plain clothes, not a claimant employee, sneaked out of the shop at 234 Ashley Road, took a photo of the parked car with his own camera, and sent the image off to the claimant. The sign itself is hidden, in a predatory position. These predatory tactics are contrary to the IPC’s Code of Practice in all respects.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]£100 is not a conscionable or fair charge for approximately 20 minutes of parking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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 £49 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 is that the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. The Defendant contends that the driver didn’t see any signs on the site whatsoever. The sign on the site is hidden at the bottom of a door, utterly unreadable and nothing like the clear and prominent terms in the Beavis case. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please see enclosed images in support of this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.[/FONT]

Guys_Dad

In (1), you write " . The claimant doesn’t have the right to issue parking tickets on the land in question, as it isn’t ‘private property.’ Borough of Poole enforce Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that therefore the restrictions have a Traffic Regulation Order. Ashley Road is deemed a Public Highway under the Highways Act 1980, including the forecourt in question, and comes under the authority of the local council."

In 4, you write "[FONT=&quot]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."

[FONT=&quot]Are you conceding that they are acting as agents for the council?

[FONT=&quot]I also think [FONT=&quot]you may need some evidence that the land is council land too.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

Brain$torm

Guys_Dad wrote: »

In (1), you write " . The claimant doesn’t have the right to issue parking tickets on the land in question, as it isn’t ‘private property.’ Borough of Poole enforce Ashley Road under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that therefore the restrictions have a Traffic Regulation Order. Ashley Road is deemed a Public Highway under the Highways Act 1980, including the forecourt in question, and comes under the authority of the local council."

In 4, you write "[FONT=&quot]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."

[FONT=&quot]Are you conceding that they are acting as agents for the council?

[FONT=&quot]I also think [FONT=&quot]you may need some evidence that the land is council land too.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

The court cases I refer to back up the point that the forecourt in a public highway, I've also emailed the council regarding this matter, that's why I've put the point in.

The first point should mean that the case gets thrown out straight away, but if the judge disagrees, then the second point should do it.

There isn't any doubt about the first point though, all the laws / judgements back it up.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Search your document for the word 'predatory' and reduce it to one, not several!

This (below) isn't right as they didn't use ANPR so I'd remove it & renumber:

b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an IPC breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.

And you don't yet send any evidence attachments at all, none yet, so remove this below.

Please see enclosed images of the sign and premises at 234 Ashley Road, and the Beavis sign, to support the above points.

This is your defence statement and evidence comes later, as you will see in bargepole's summary of what happens when (under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread).

I can't see UKCPM proceeding to a hearing re this site, especially once the DVLA are informed about the issues. Firms can be banned for ticketing on public highway and/or for predatory tactics as both are VERY serious CoP breaches, whichever ATA they are in.

Brain$torm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks good.

Search your document for the word 'predatory' and reduce it to one, not several!

This (below) isn't right as they didn't use ANPR so I'd remove it & renumber:


And you don't yet send any evidence attachments at all, none yet, so remove this below.

This is your defence statement and evidence comes later, as you will see in bargepole's summary of what happens when (under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread).

I can't see UKCPM proceeding to a hearing re this site, especially once the DVLA are informed about the issues. Firms can be banned for ticketing on public highway and/or for predatory tactics as both are VERY serious CoP breaches, whichever ATA they are in.

Okay, I've made the changes you suggested.

I'm going to post it off today, I'll let you know what happens next.

Thanks again for all your help

System

Counterclaim? Misuse of personal data. Unjust enrichment by operating on the highway?

Brain$torm

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Counterclaim? Misuse of personal data. Unjust enrichment by operating on the highway?

I've already posted it

Perhaps I could add that at a later date. I'm hoping it gets thrown out quickly.

Bargepole's to do list says leave that part blank, but I guess every case isn't the same and they have been very naughty in this one.