PCN Appeal Rejected - worth taking further?

NewNewMoney

Thank you so much for the help and advice on this.

To update, I sent a SAR on April 28th but due to the bank holiday weekend I doubt they would have received anything before May 3rd.

In relation to my third PCN from P&PM, as mentioned in a previous post I've been following the advice in the newbies thread and appealed against the PCN well after 28 days using the template provided. They responded here: m.imgur.com/nTDYp64 and I assume I'll be getting another letter from gladstones in a few weeks.

RE gladstones and the second PCN, I will send a letter to them using the same template on PePiPoo forum.

I guess now its just a waiting game

The_Deep

Read some of this about Gladstones fails


https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_en-GBGB707GB707&q=prankster+gladstoned&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1

NewNewMoney

So I everyone was pretty prompt and I received an LBC from Gladstones before receiving a response to the letter in relation to their final warning (which I treated as an LBC), and P&PM responded to my SAR providing all the back and forth correspondence - no surprises in terms of the information they provided.

Should I send another letter in response to the LBC? The LBC is standard, pretty identical to the final warning letter.

Their response to my letter includes the information that P&PM shared with them, photos, details of the PCN etc but not my appeal/their response. And they also refer to two court cases - Elliott v Loake 1983 and VCS v HM Revenue and Customs 2013, as well as the Protection of Freedoms Act (in response to me not being the driver, just the registered keeper). imgur.com/a/MvQD8

The letter said they are not instructed litigate through further correspondence and after 14 days they would issue a claim which I assume to be a court case.

This is all for my second PCN. In regards to the the third PCN I've not received any letters apart from the reminders sent by P&PM.

Coupon-mad

Yes, respond to the LBC asking whether they are alleging that the Notice to Keeper in this instance complies with Schedule 4 of the POFA, or are they trying the old chestnut of pretending that the criminal case of Elliott v Loake has application here, because it doesn't?

You need to respond, because in your defence you can then show the Judge you acted reasonably at all times.

NewNewMoney

Hello,

I've received a claim form where my options are admit total amount claimed, partial claim or dispute the claim, costs have now increased from £160 to £237.88 and I have 14 days dated from June 8th to respond. (What a wonderful welcome back from holiday).

I know I need to start working on a defence, a draft of which I will post shortly. I did mention in an earlier post that P&PM's response to my appeal (a link is in an earlier post) was a rejection, but they said ".... this does not negate the fact that your vehicle was displayed with a valid permit" I assume this was a typo but could this work in my favour as essentially they have admitted in a letter to me that they acknowledged my valid permit.

Coupon-mad

I've received a claim form where my options are admit total amount claimed, partial claim or dispute the claim, costs have now increased from £160 to £237.88 and I have 14 days dated from June 8th to respond. (What a wonderful welcome back from holiday).

The answers are in the NEWBIES thread post #2, to make sure you get the options right. Tells you how to do the AOS.

they said ".... this does not negate the fact that your vehicle was displayed with a valid permit" I assume this was a typo but could this work in my favour as essentially they have admitted in a letter to me that they acknowledged my valid permit.

... They've effectively said my permit was valid...

LOL! Yes I would quote them in the defence, you can't assume the written word is a typo!

As for the rest of the defence, see the linked examples in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread or read some on the forum from this week and copy from them, and adapt to suit.

NewNewMoney

Hi I'm hoping you can take a look at my MCOL response (which I will post once I get the thumbs up from you. I did leave this quite late I've got about 5 days to submit everything, and I really did consider throwing in the towel and just paying the damn charge as I was feeling very overwhelmed at one point - I still don't really understand everything I have typed but hopefully you can help me fix any glaring issues)

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and I deny each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. In addition, I am representing myself due to the cost of a solicitor and due to this I request some leniency as I do not have experience in dealing with and responding to legal issues.

Preliminary matters:

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” 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', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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.

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.

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.

This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.

Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
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.

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

It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
• Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
• The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
• The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
• No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
• Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

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.

They did not send me a Letter Before Claim [Exhibit A] that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter Before Claim can be seen to miss the following information:
• A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
• A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
• How the “charge amount” of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.
• Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:
a) Insufficient signage: I have appealed about this to the claimant on a prior PCN. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed and apparent private area where I had parked. I was completely unaware that the parking area was private and gym members did not have access to the car park because of the insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary – there were none, as I can evidence in photographs taken at the site [Exhibit B]
b) There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'.
c) The claimant has admitted in [Exhibit C] that there were no Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), system cameras or machines in place. Therefore, I cannot accept that these photos of my car were actually taken at the date and time mentioned.
d) The claimant said I did not have a valid permit despite providing them with photographic evidence that I did have a valid permit [Exhibit D] and I challenged the way the claimant’s photographs were taken, as I believed they were taken in a way which meant that from certain angles you could not see the valid permit that had blown off from the dash and in between the two front seats. A photo taken from directly in front of the front windscreen would have shown this. [Exhibit E]
e) The response to the appeal, submitted by the defendant [Exhibit F], the claimant admitted in their written correspondence that I had a valid permit. Taken directly from the claimant response: “However, this investigation does not negate the fact that your vehicle was parked with displaying a valid permit.” The claimant has acknowledged and agreed with my appeal stating that my permit was valid, subsequently making this PCN invalid, yet the claimant still rejected my appeal.

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.

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''.

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

Coupon-mad

I'm hoping you can take a look at my MCOL response

Yes of course - but you won't be submitting this on MCOL, you just email the defence as a PDF (signed and dated and scanned) to the CCBC, as shown in lots of defence threads.

Also, you do not attach ANY exhibits with this defence, even though you want to. That comes much later, at Witness Statement stage, as shown by bargepole in his post I linked in a section: 'Important - know what happens when' in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

One document, emailed to the CCBC with 'Defence re Claim number xxxxxx' in the subject line.


Remove the repetition here:

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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.

[STRIKE]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.[/STRIKE]

If it wasn't dark at the time, do not say this, obviously:

The signage was not lit

In fact remove the entire sentence, because the UTCCRs were repealed in 2015! I am worried you've been reading old defences:

[STRIKE]The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999[/STRIKE].

Don't talk about a 'prior PCN' as that makes it sound like you are a serial 'offender' who knew or should have known by now, about the terms:

a) Insufficient signage: [STRIKE]I have appealed about this to the claimant on a prior PCN[/STRIKE].

Please don't say this, I can't believe this even exists as a sentence:

I was completely unaware that the parking area was private

What I mean is, of course it's a private car park (every car park is, that's not a Council one!). ''Private land'' is not a special term, and actually means almost nothing in itself. And you know it's not a Council site because you have day permits to use it...therefore, you KNOW it's private land (maybe just not in those terms).

So what really! It's land you are permitted to park on. End of story. ''Private land'' isn't some big secret.

c) The claimant has admitted in [Exhibit C] that there were no Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), system cameras or machines in place. Therefore, I cannot accept that these photos of my car were actually taken at the date and time mentioned.

Really? Are you actually going to argue that? What proof do you have?

Please don't assume the permit had 'blown off'! You do not know that. Did it not occur to you that ex-clamper firms are known to rock or nudge cars to dislodge permits? It's been going on for years, so don't assume how this happened, bearing in mind we know that their employee stood very close to your car...:

d) The claimant said I did not have a valid permit despite providing them with photographic evidence that I did have a valid permit [Exhibit D] and I challenged the way the claimant’s photographs were taken, as I believed they were taken in a way which meant that from certain angles you could not see the valid permit, which when I left the car, was displayed on the dashboard perfectly correctly. I have no idea how the permit was caused to be dislodged but note that the employee must have stood very close to the vehicle, so close that they could have dislodged it themselves, and it is a fact that he/she knew that the permit had fallen and angled the photos accordingly. I wish to question that person as a witness at the hearing. [STRIKE]that had blown off from the dash and in between the two front seats.[/STRIKE]

Please quote the PPC properly (exactly. In one please you wrote they said:

".... this does not negate the fact that your vehicle was displayed with a valid permit"

but in your defence you've typed:

''Taken directly from the claimant response: “However, this investigation does not negate the fact that your vehicle was parked with displaying a valid permit.”

Which is right? Get it quoted spot on, word for word. Those two versions are completely different!

Refer to evidence but do NOT include it with your email, just the signed/dated defence statement set out as shown, in the right font/line spacing, and with the headings centralised as shown in the NEWBIES thread.




You can do this, good work so far!

NewNewMoney

Thank you for your help - reading it back today with a relatively clear head there are some rookie errors. I was looking at some recent posts but I got worried as obviously no two situations are the same but I just felt the responses (which were really good) weren't applicable to me and I'd have to omit a lot, so I did start digging back a few years until I found some responses that I felt were compatible with my case.

Please quote the PPC properly (exactly. In one please you wrote they said:
“
".... this does not negate the fact that your vehicle was displayed with a valid permit"
but in your defence you've typed:

'Taken directly from the claimant response: “However, this investigation does not negate the fact that your vehicle was parked with displaying a valid permit.”

Which is right? Get it quoted spot on, word for word. Those two versions are completely different!

The quote in the written my defence is word for word, when I typed it in a prior post I was paraphrasing.

c) The claimant has admitted in [Exhibit C] that there were no Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), system cameras or machines in place. Therefore, I cannot accept that these photos of my car were actually taken at the date and time mentioned.

Really? Are you actually going to argue that? What proof do you have?

In an appeal for yet another PCN (3/3) (I swear whoever works for these guys has it out for me) I followed a template posted in the newbies thread. The question I asked was: Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems and machines Their response was (taken directly word for word): No system cameras or machines were used. No Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was used.

However I will take this out as you mentioned that it flags I am a serial offender.

Version 2 below.


I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and I deny each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. In addition, I am representing myself due to the cost of a solicitor and due to this I request some leniency as I do not have experience in dealing with and responding to legal issues.

Preliminary matters:

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” 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', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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.

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.

This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.

Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

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.

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

It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
• Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
• The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
• The signage terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
• No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
• Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

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.

The Claimant’s solicitor did not send me a Letter Before Claim [Exhibit A] that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter Before Claim can be seen to miss the following information:
• A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
• A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
• How the “charge amount” of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.
• Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:
a) Insufficient signage: The PCN was issued on a poorly signed area where I had parked. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary – there were none, as I can evidence in photographs taken at the site [Exhibit B]
b) There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'.
c) The claimant said I did not have a valid permit despite providing them with photographic evidence that I did have a valid permit [Exhibit C] and I challenged the way the claimant’s photographs were taken, as I believed they were taken in a way which meant that from certain angles you could not see the valid permit, which when I left the car, was displayed on the dashboard perfectly correctly. I have no idea how the permit was caused to be dislodged but note that the employee must have stood very close to the vehicle, so close that they could have dislodged it themselves, and it is a fact that he/she knew that the permit had fallen and angled the photos accordingly. I wish to question that person as a witness at the hearing. A photo taken from directly in front of the front windscreen would have shown this. [Exhibit D]
d) The response to the appeal, submitted by the defendant [Exhibit E], the claimant admitted in their written correspondence that I had a valid permit. Taken directly from the claimant response: “However, this investigation does not negate the fact that your vehicle was parked with displaying a valid permit.” The claimant has acknowledged and agreed with my appeal stating that my permit was valid, subsequently making this PCN invalid, yet the claimant still rejected my appeal.
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.

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''.

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

Coupon-mad

Remove all mentions of 'exhibits' as these do not accompany a defence, not at this stage.

Remove the UTCCRS, replace with the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

• The signage terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

All looks OK after that.

Be ready for Gladstones trick of next sending you a N159 suggesting you agree to the case being 'heard on the papers'. No. Just no...! Covered in LOADs of Gladstones threads, so read some that are ahead of you in the process and bookmark them.