FINAL REMINDER - SIP LIMITED - Manchester

thismakemesad

I've had a look at para 4. and it now stands as this:

4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the ominous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

Is this better?

Can anybody recommend if there is enough of a defence there regarding the driver not being able to make it back to the vehicle in time as mentioned above in the thread? I'm not sure if there is sufficient defence there to support that that's why the driver was late back and the ticket issued.. Or is there enough of a defence regarding the site and the way Gladstones have handled this?

Coupon-mad

'International Parking Community' = IPC (they changed their name).

nor are the ominous terms

should read 'nor are the onerous terms'

...and yes that's much better, we know that the tariff will have been in large lettering but the 'fine' hidden in small print, as it always is. I would not mention why the driver was late back because you are defending this as keeper, and an excuse about why the driver was delayed, plays into the claimant's hands to show a breach...

I would stick with what you have there now, mainly going for the signs not creating a clear and prominent contract to pay anything except the large lettering tariff.

thismakemesad

Brilliant thank you. I'll be submitting this tomorrow, just going to post this once more in case there are some final points anybody spots:

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.

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.
1b. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred the stated additional costs of £50 and it is to be put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. If they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs” and The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
1c. 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.
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 no right to claim relief from the keeper of the vehicle in question, as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4 which is the explicit and only mechanism by with a vehicles Keeper may be held liable for a driver parking their vehicle on private land. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper.
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 might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.

5. After complying with the claimant’s Letter Before County Court Claim (response sent 26/04/17 and signed delivery on 27/04/17 09:24 by Greensmith) stating that The Keeper did not believe the Letter was fully compliant with the Practice direction as the Letter did not provide concise details about the matter and requested further information about the claim. The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised; The proper claimant is the landowner.
5a. 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.
5b. 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.

6. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

thismakemesad

I made a mistake with my defence submission date, it's 5th June deadline, so unless anybody can confirm that I can just send this off I may wait for some more feedback? Tell me if I'm being paranoid..

Coupon-mad

Submit it as a signed and dated document attachment, by email to the CCBC

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


...and also it's a good idea right now, to send a copy by email to Gladstones in case of delay by CCBC, who are a couple of weeks behind with their dealing with filing defences, by all accounts:

litigation@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk

Just state that this is a copy of the defence filed at the CCBC and you will NOT agree to a hearing on the papers, so Gladstones should not waste anyone's time suggesting it.

thismakemesad

I have had some pictures sent though last minute!
http://i.imgur.com/sHvL3dy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wwzYJOS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0ylbkIB.jpg

I don't know if this changes the defence but it might be worth something

Coupon-mad

Proves what I said earlier that I knew would be true:

we know that the tariff will have been in large lettering but the 'fine' hidden in small print, as it always is.

Look how large font the fee/tariff is, yet you have to search the signs for anything else and simply cannot see £100 anywhere unless you got out a magnifying glass.

Also I would add that you have photo evidence of this, and the fact that the location has no entrance sign at all, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice. No entrance sign and just large font signs saying 'pay here' and some tariffs, is NOT an 'agreed' contract to pay £100.

thismakemesad

Hi all,

So I have received a letter from Gladstones which is a client completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request.
Unfortunately it sounds like this will now go to court and that it will be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing.

Does anybody have any experience with this and what I need to do now at this stage?
There is an N159 form on the back but nothing is filled in stating when I need to return the documents or who to. Is this just a copy and I will receive another from the Court to respond to?

Also, it states on the back; "The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received."
- Without sounding stupid, does this mean I won't need to attend court?

Any advice on the next steps would be greatly appreciated

All the best
Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Unfortunately it sounds like this will now go to court and that it will be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing.

Fortunately it doesn't mean that at all! You need to read more Gladstones threads, you would be so much more better prepared for their shenanigans if you did!

Read the threads by:

Jack Basta

and

Gin and Milk

both of whom were among our winners v Gladstones, and both threads show how to respond to that daft letter from Gladstones. You need to realise they are playing a nasty game to try to confuse and beat consumers by leading them up garden paths. Do not believe them.

Is this just a copy and I will receive another from the Court to respond to?

Now you are on the right track, and the letter you will get won't be a N159 'paper hearing' one. You will get a N180.

Without sounding stupid, does this mean I won't need to attend court?

You want to have an oral hearing face to face in court and you will get it at your local court, you get that choice.

thismakemesad

Ohhhh okay, so the actual best thing from here is to go to court, right? There was me thinking that going to court would mean I probably don't have the best of cases..
Thanks for the heads up with the threads I need to read! Will get on that now