What next?, letter from Gladstones

nosferatu1001

Not just signage
Standing, amount is a penalty, MASSIVE preamble section about poor particulrars of claim, etc.

madcazza

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Could we have the location to check the signs there. High signs and small print as PCM's normal scam.

its a private road, didn't know this until I got the ticket , only had parking management in place since November 16 , nothing shows on google maps as the sign is new, trying to work out how to upload photos on here

Umkomaas

trying to work out how to upload photos on here

Host on tiny pic, or Dropbox, copy URL, paste into reply box here, but change http to hxxp and a regular will convert.

madcazza

A. It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of vehicle.
B. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue alleged 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.
I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application.
Accordingly, 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. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking Control Management(UK) Ltd, and no proof has been provided.

C. The claim itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, The claim also states "parking charges /damages and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no 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'.
Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person 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.

D. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor has failed to provide me with the necessary information in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
c) How the “charge amount” of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.
E.
F. 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.

G. It is strongly denied that there was any 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event due to the following

Insufficient Signage.

i) The PCN was issued on a road where I had parked on many previous occasions, there was not on this occasion nor previous occasions any notices that this is a private road.
ii) I found a sign after I found the PCN on my vehicle which was positioned approximately 2 meters from the ground and of a size that was impossible to read, and it would be reasonable to assume from the location and position that the sign itself is making reference to the building site behind, rather than the road which is not marked as private. This sign is too high and the text too small for a driver to see whilst in the vehicle, meaning it is not obvious to the motorist.

I refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Entrance signs should
i. Make it clear that the Motorist is entering Private Land
ii. Signs should be obvious to the Motorist.
iii. Text should be of a such a size and in a font that can be easily readable by the motorist.
The sign in question did not meet any of the above criteria as evidenced in
Exhibit 1: My own photograph of the sign, location and position
Exhibit 1a: Photographs supplied previously by Parking Control Management (UK)Ltd of the sign, location and position.

madcazza

Umkomaas wrote: »

Host on tiny pic, or Dropbox, copy URL, paste into reply box here, but change http to hxxp and a regular will convert.

nope, still wont let me post links

KeithP

madcazza wrote: »

nope, still wont let me post links

Of course it will.

Like this person did:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73286123&postcount=5

madcazza

After filing my defence, about a month ago, I have now received further correspondence from Gladstones, a blank directions questionnaire and a special direction request to have the case considered on paperwork without a hearing.
Today I received my directions questionnaire from the court, apart from filling it in and sending it back, what do I do now?

Loadsofchildren123

nothing. Ignore the Gladstones letter, fill in your DQ and send it in to the court and a copy to Gladstones. Make it clear you do not consent to the matter being dealt with on the papers and that you want a hearing.