Gladstones Court Papers

airman1232

Can I use the below instead for the NTK?
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCS do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

[FONT=&quot]I assume this is going to come down to signage, so here is the images: http://imgur.com/a/kXzdR[/FONT]
[/FONT]

airman1232

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, no. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXX XXX[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked in a residential bay at Sandlewood Court, Maidstone.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regarding the car park in questions, the signs when entering the car park show that the car park is for permit holders and free parking. The sign also states ‘See notices on car park for details’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstone Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding ‘Legal Representatives Costs’ of £50.00 and £85.14 in addition to £70 for the amount claimed, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solictors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. 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 expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCS do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/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.
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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver. In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area, not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park. The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to. This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that, the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible. With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car. The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver. The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park. This sign therefore contains false information.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.[/FONT]

airman1232

Hi Guys,

I have revised the above, do I need points 1 and 2, can i improve on them? I also mention the signage on point 8.

This si getting urgent now so appreicate some feedback. Also the preliminary matters, are they part of the defence document? I need to post it as the text box in MCOL does not fit my whole defence.

Thanks.

Redx

if you read BARGEPOLE`s thread and posts he tells you what to do , what font to use , to use post and which version to send it by , all the guff you need to know

he also says the MCOL site messes up the formatting too

so if you have not read the recent posts by bargepole (over the last 6 months or so) , you are putting yourself at risk

my advice, do what he says , to the letter , no deviations

this is the defence you are doing , later its the witness statements , pictures, evidence etc, after a local court is allocated , anything missing from the defence cannot be put in later (or it costs a lot of money to change it later)

it is quite clear that backtobasix has read bargepole`s threads and posts

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5402484

Coupon-mad

[FONT=&quot]1.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, no. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXX XXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]. 1.2. The Claim relates to an [STRIKE]alleged debt[/STRIKE] unwarranted penalty sum arising from the vehicle having been allegedly parked [STRIKE]in a residential bay[/STRIKE] at Sandlewood Court, Maidstone.
1.3. The driver has not been identified by this Claimant, who appear to be pursuing me simply because I was the registered keeper of the car, yet without using the only applicable statute which would have enabled a parking firm to rely on 'keeper liability'.
1.4. Given the passage of time, I am unable to recall who was driving and in any event there is no lawful obligation upon a registered keeper to assist a parking company which has failed to either (a) evidence the driver or (b) in the alternative, utilise the statute available to hold keepers liable for the conduct of a driver. If the Claimant has evidence of the driver's identity, I put them to strict proof of same. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regarding the car park in [STRIKE]questions[/STRIKE] question, the [STRIKE]signs[/STRIKE] sign when entering the car park has been altered (one broken tatty sign overlaid and obscuring the terms on another) but it appears to show that the car park is for permit holders and free parking is available for shoppers.
2.2. The sign also states ‘See notices [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] in car park for details’[/FONT] however the signs within are a mix of instructions and one sign sets out tiny images of different bays that a driver would only see having already parked, if standing right next to a sign to try to interpret it.
2.3. The site appears woefully marked in terms of differing signs and lines including one sign allowing 20 minutes free with no caveat, while another mentions 2 hours free (and £100 charge in small font). These conflicting terms are incapable of forming a clear contract and fail the test of transparency and fairness; a driver cannot learn before parking, about the onerous terms by which he/she will then be bound so cannot possibly be deemed to have agreed to any 'contract' before the act of parking.
2.4. There is no evidence that any grace period was allowed for a driver to read the conflicting signs. The absence of allowing a grace period breaches his Claimant's ATA Code of Practice, a strict set of rules held to be 'effectively regulation' by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
3.2. The land appears to be owned/leased by different parties with different bays and conflicting signs, part shopping and part residential, so the Claimant is put to strict proof of exactly where the car was parked in relation to which sign and which bays.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstone Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding ‘Legal Representatives Costs’ of £50.00 and £85.14 [STRIKE]in addition to £70 for the amount claimed,[/STRIKE] which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. [STRIKE]The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solictors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct[/STRIKE].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges from a registered keeper even if they had complied with the POFA, which they did not. [STRIKE]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 expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court[/STRIKE][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK).[/STRIKE][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]PCS do not use[/STRIKE]
5.2. This Claimant failed to issue a compliant [STRIKE]NTKs, failed to serve one[/STRIKE] NTK and cannot hold a registered keeper liable in law.
5.3. Instead, a misleading letter impersonating a (Local Authority penalty document) 'Notice to Owner' was served by a debt collector third party, omitting the statutory wording from paragraph 8 of the POFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]7.[/STRIKE] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]6. 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) [STRIKE]The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) [/STRIKE][STRIKE]The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c)[/STRIKE] The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. [STRIKE]The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]d) [/STRIKE] b) 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. [STRIKE]The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.[/STRIKE][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]8. [/STRIKE] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][STRIKE]The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver. In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area, not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park. The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to. This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that, the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible. With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car. The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver. The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park. This sign therefore contains false information.[/STRIKE][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]9.[/STRIKE] 7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]10.[/STRIKE] 8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 [STRIKE]will now be[/STRIKE] was struck out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][STRIKE]11.[/STRIKE] 9.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.[/FONT]

9.2. In the event that the Claim is not struck out and/or that the Claimant is required to serve more details Particulars, I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this interim defence, as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

9.3. This defence is based on the sparse information available from a template 'cut & paste' claim filed by Gladstones Solicitors on behalf of a parking company claimant, where I have been furnished with nothing about the alleged contract, contravention or other vital details that remain withheld from me as an unrepresented Defendant.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.[/FONT]



Try weeding out the repetition above, and show us what it then looks like. Separate each numbered point with a space between.

Save this signage detail for later, this is far too much information for the initial defence:

The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver. In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area, not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park. The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to. This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that, the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible. With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car. The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver. The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park. This sign therefore contains false information.

Kind_Of_Irritated

This is airman1232's case, not mine, but I hope readers won't mind me saying that people on here are so lucky to be the recipients of such detailed and comprehensive and personalised aid as provided above by Coupon-mad.

:A She's a star!

Thank you. :T I just feel the need to say that.

Guys_Dad

What has happened to the Grace period point that seems to me to be a winner. Although your previous wording mentioned the BPA, the IPC COP has similar clause and you can always use the BPA time definition in court.

The_Deep

The amount of time that OP has spent on this appals me, especially as it has been brought about by a scammer interfering with his/her quiet enjoyment of his property, possibly an offence under the Housing Acts.

OP should get on to the landlord and get him/her on side, this no way for an MA to treat the landlord's tenants. They should also, once the claim has been throwm out, make a claim against the PPC.

airman1232

Here it is

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No.: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GLADSTONES SOLICITORS LTD[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]-and- [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]CLAIMANT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]___________________________________________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE STATEMENT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]___________________________________________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, no. XXX XXX[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claim relates to an unwarranted penalty sum arising from the vehicle having been allegedly parked at Sandlewood Court, Maidstone. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The driver has not been identified by this Claimant, who appear to be pursuing me simply because I was the registered keeper of the car, yet without using the only applicable statute which would have enabled a parking firm to rely on 'keeper liability'. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Given the passage of time, I am unable to recall who was driving and in any event there is no lawful obligation upon a registered keeper to assist a parking company which has failed to either (a) evidence the driver or (b) in the alternative, utilise the statute available to hold keepers liable for the conduct of a driver. If the Claimant has evidence of the driver's identity, I put them to strict proof of same. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regarding the car park in question, the sign when entering the car park has been altered (one broken tatty sign overlaid and obscuring the terms on another) but it appears to show that the car park is for permit holders and free parking is available for shoppers. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sign also states ‘See notices in car park for details’[/FONT][FONT=&quot] however the signs within are a mix of instructions and one sign sets out tiny images of different bays that a driver would only see having already parked, if standing right next to a sign to try to interpret it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The site appears woefully marked in terms of differing signs and lines including one sign allowing 20 minutes free with no caveat, while another mentions 2 hours free (and £100 charge in small font). These conflicting terms are incapable of forming a clear contract and fail the test of transparency and fairness; a driver cannot learn before parking, about the onerous terms by which he/she will then be bound so cannot possibly be deemed to have agreed to any 'contract' before the act of parking.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is no evidence that any grace period was allowed for a driver to read the conflicting signs. The absence of allowing a grace period breaches his Claimant's ATA Code of Practice, a strict set of rules held to be 'effectively regulation' by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The land appears to be owned/leased by different parties with different bays and conflicting signs, part shopping and part residential, so the Claimant is put to strict proof of exactly where the car was parked in relation to which sign and which bays.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstone Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding ‘Legal Representatives Costs’ of £50.00 and £85.14, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges from a registered keeper even if they had complied with the POFA, which they did not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This Claimant failed to issue a compliant NTK and cannot hold a registered keeper liable in law. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Instead, a misleading letter impersonating a (Local Authority penalty document) 'Notice to Owner' was served by a debt collector third party, omitting the statutory wording from paragraph 8 of the POFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.1. [/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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 was struck out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the event that the Claim is not struck out and/or that the Claimant is required to serve more details Particulars, I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this interim defence, as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant’s case. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This defence is based on the sparse information available from a template 'cut & paste' claim filed by Gladstones Solicitors on behalf of a parking company claimant, where I have been furnished with nothing about the alleged contract, contravention or other vital details that remain withheld from me as an unrepresented Defendant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Coupon-mad

That's a very good Gladstones defence. Nicely done, repetition weeded out and it flows well.