SIP PARKING/gladstones- county court help

Jettimmax

Sorry to people who most prob see this kind of thread every day!
I have read previous posts and I'm still stuck on what to reply.
So on 2nd July 2016. I have not paid for parking. I don't even remember parking there or going there.
I did receive letters which I ignored after doing big research I guess I shouldn't of ignored. Gladstones then sent me letter and I just didn't know what to do.
So know I have received county court file saying I owe them around 250£... 250£ I'm pretty sure this car park would of cost me 2/3£ maximum.
I want to challenge this amount but what can I do.
I have 3 more days to 'defend' my self or I will lose right away? Is there a way round this ?
Thanks

Redx

read the COURT CLAIM section of the NEWBIES sticky thread and follow the advice of coupon-mad and bargepole that is in there

logon online and ACKNOWLEDGE the claim to get an extra 14 days to prepare your defence (do not enter one character in the defence box , nothing at all for now)

no there is no way to "get around" this , you need to defend yourself because GLADSTONES are on the offensive , not just against you but against many , MANY other vehicle owners too

plenty of threads on here about similar claims by GLADSTONES , please read them and prepare your defence accordingly

yes we do see these threads on a daily basis , the replies are always the same

Coupon-mad

Read the links & info under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' sticky thread and come back when you've calmed down and done the AOS on MCOL.

We've never lost a Gladstones defended case thus far.

You need to read what's here already, first. Don't ask what is AOS or MCOL, you will learn that from the Small Claim info.

Then once acknowledged, you have extended the time to defend, to 28 days from service of the court claim, and can then search 'Gladstones defence' on this board and copy the generic sort of thing to submit at this stage.

Jettimmax

Not gonna lie lads I've had read over this and I'm still stuck on what to send in my reply. Not brightest spark I'll admit.

Don't think I should just copy a previous response.

Any help be appreciated if not no worries. Thanks anyway

Coupon-mad

But you are not sending something in reply. You are acknowledging the claim. Not difficult. I hope you ONLY read the 'Small Claim?' section? Surely bargepole's summary of what to do when didn't go over your head. It is easy. Everyone manages it.

Not gonna lie lads

I'm a lass...

Redx

Jettimmax wrote: »

Not gonna lie lads

I've had read over this and I'm still stuck on what to send in my reply.

well, I did tell you not to put anything at all in the box, because you are not replying to anything and you wont be replying either , this is NOT a conversation , its a battle of wills in the small claims court arena

you WILL be constructing your own defence which you will submit before the deadline

Jettimmax

Think I'm gonna have to leave this to be honest. Know how clueless I look commenting and is annoying for more experienced users.

I have gone through small claims section. I have seen the defence on there which Looks good to use but not sure how I could write this into my own defence without just copying.

Redx

if the defence you found matches what happened with you , then copy it but ensure there are no untruths , no lies , no differences that need putting right

in other words, it must be truthful and honest and not talk about a retail park if it was a hospital for example

copy it into word, alter it to suit your own self and then save it , print it and send to the court with proof of posting or recorded

read the bargepole thread on how to do this, he explains it all in great detail

and make sure you login online TODAY and acknowledge the claim like he tells you to do , (to extend the deadline by 14 days) dont write anything in that defence box, nothing at all, plus remember any login password and any references etc too

we are trying to educate you into what is going on here, not to criticise you for incorrect words

the point is that this is legal stuff, and serious , so we are correcting your mistakes now so you dont make them later on , when it may harm your defence or case

this is new to you, so just take it on the chin and accept what you are being told on here , we have your best interests at heart, and if that means bruising your ego then sobeit , take the lumps and win your case, thats all we want

the last thing we want is for SIP (Stupid , Ignorant , Plebs) to win their court cases due to their sc@mming malpractices

good luck

Jettimmax

Hi

Having read through it all best I can, I am still where i left off in all honesty, best i could do was copy and paste what i thought was relevant.

Preliminary Matters.

(1). 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
1.1 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.

(2). 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 Claimants are
known to be serial issuers 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.


Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!

1.4 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):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
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

(3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to
the Defendant.
2. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the
Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by
their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am *, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. 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.
3. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give
the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is
mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper
liability' provisions of the POFA.

(3) 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.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.’
f) On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.


(4) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to
the Defendant.
2. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

(5) The defendant wrote to the claimant on 12th December 2017 asking for:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with SIP Parking.
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that SIP Parking had
their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide
justification of this sum
f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g) To provide a copy of the signs that SIP Parking can evidence were on site and which
contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all
photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.

(6) Withholding any relevant photos, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the
outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the
pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body
and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no
excuse for these omissions.
The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
asks leave to amend the Defence.


(7). SIP Parking Enforcements 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 action regarding this claim.
1. 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.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
3. The Claimant is put to proof 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

(8)
1. 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 amount.
This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and anattempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2. 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.

(9) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an
ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the
windscreen, therfore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
4. 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.
(10) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
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.

(11)
1. 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 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.
2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred solicitor costs.
3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred costs
to pursue an alleged debt.
4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
5. The Claimant described the charge "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

(12). 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. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
'bound to have seen'.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


IS THIS GOING TO GET ME ANYWEHRE?

Redx

edit the above and remove all PERSONAL INFO asap

Coupon-mad

That's a decent Gladstones defence, if a bit wordy! Cut the waffle down a bit and remove your name from this posting here on MSE (obviously it stays in the actual version you will be posting to court at Northampton).

You have acknowledged service haven't you, on MCOL?