Court Summon for parking ticket, advice

mctaggart

Phew i managed to get into MCOL this morning

Its in, i read all the info you guys had put up in the newbie threads about about gladstones robo claims, found other cases which were the same as my own and modified them to suit, so should be fine.

Coupon-mad

Yes that stage is done but don't miss the next ones - see Bargepole's post under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread.

mctaggart

Hello

OK things have now progressed to the point where i am off to court in a months time, I have just received the trail bundle from the Claimant Gladstones solicitors and they have done their best to rubbish my defense.

I need someone to go through the trail bundle and give me advice on what to do now, do their statements hold up or is it all a sham and i should plough on to the court, its all got very real all of a sudden!

Its worth noting their original paperwork for a claim was so vague you had no idea what they were claiming for and now that its gone to court they suddenly have all this evidence!

Whats best way to show you the trial bundal, shall i just photocopy it as a PDF and post it up on here for you to read, its quite long about 30 pages.

Thanks!!

Coupon-mad

Host it in Dropbox then share the link here. But we won't help from scratch without you getting stuck in - you must surely have gone through it already and have highlighted the trash within it. So when showing us the WS, tell us what you have spotted, give us something to look at and not have to write it for you.

And what's your date to get your WS and evidence to the court (you know, the date in the court letter on page two).

Marktheshark

You keep on, the parking company has already lost money and even if they win which is rare as Gladstones are incompetent and over stretched, the parking firm end up hundreds out of pocket.

mctaggart

My court date is 12th may, the witness submission date was 8th march, however i am not relying on any additional witnesses in aditition to my original defense, although oddly i notice gladstones have submitted new witness information as early as a few days ago to the trial bundle.

here is my original defense

1) It is admitted that the defendant, Amy Adamson, residing at 33 Sketty Road, Swansea, SA2 0EU is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under 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.

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 consumer 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 are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, 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. In fact, the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction (this was specifically mentioned at the hearing and was clearly not something they would have allowed). 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) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake(1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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''.

19. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, no keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4.

20. I believe that their signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. It is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

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

i will post up their responses to my my arguments shortly.

Thanks

Craig

Coupon-mad

My court date is 12th may, the witness submission date was 8th march, however i am not relying on any additional witnesses in aditition to my original defense,

But the NEWBIES thread post #2 (bargepole's link) tells you that you are the witness and you must submit your WS and evidence. not just put in a defence then rock up at a hearing. People lose by doing that.

Have you missed the deadline? Submit one anyway - this week - a WS and evidence is needed from you.

oddly i notice gladstones have submitted new witness information as early as a few days ago to the trial bundle.

So they were late too?

mctaggart

yes, everything they have submitted which they sent to me is all dated 3 weeks past the deadline date.

Coupon-mad

OK, so you are late too. Show us your WS and planned evidence sharpish, because there is a long Bank Holiday weekend fast approaching that will make you a whole week later if you can't sort this by Weds.

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread about WS and evidence (and skeleton argument) stage and click to see examples. That's what you should have done in March, do it NOW.

Gladstones are laughing at you at the moment...sadly, so claw this back.

[Deleted User]

The alternative would be to ask for all statements to be excluded as late. Since it's for Claimant to prove his case, that may not be disadvantageous....